Matter of Weiss v. Franklin Sq. Munson Fire Dist

8 Citing cases

  1. Drier v. Randforce Amusement Corp.

    14 Misc. 2d 362 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)   Cited 5 times

    The substantive question urged upon me by the plaintiff on this submission is whether a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board stating that no accident occurred and denying compensation to the plaintiff for an injury can be pleaded in bar of the plaintiff's common-law action in negligence for the same injury. I agree with the contention of the plaintiff that "[t]he determinations of the Workmen's Compensation Board are final and conclusive upon the parties only as to issues within its jurisdiction" ( Matter of Weiss v. Franklin Square Munson Fire Dist., 309 N.Y. 52, 55) and that the duty of the board is to determine whether there is an "injury arising out of and in the course of the employment" (Workmen's Compensation Law, ยง 10 Work. Comp.). But the further argument of the plaintiff that the finding that there was no accident at all was beyond the board's powers and, therefore, not res judicata is a non sequitur.Karameros v. Luther ( 279 N.Y. 87 โ€” not cited by counsel), gave me some pause on first reading, but, upon study, I find the case to be quite distinguishable from the one at bar.

  2. Matter of Pannone v. New York St. Educ. Dept

    54 A.D.2d 1014 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)   Cited 9 times

    hearing, petitioner was brought before the Department of Health on alleged violations of sections 3305 Pub. Health and 3330 Pub. Health of the Public Health Law in that he prescribed narcotic drugs to this same patient not in good faith. This charge was dismissed by that agency for insufficient legal evidence, although petitioner was found guilty of failing to report a habitual drug user. Petitioner urges that the Department of Health's finding of insufficient evidence to support the charge that petitioner acted not in good faith should have been binding on the Department of Education. It is well established in New York that the principles of res judicata are applicable to the determination of administrative agencies (Matter of Evans v Monaghan, 306 N.Y. 312). This court is of the view, however, that essential differences between the sections of the Public Health Law and the Education Law herein involved preclude application of the principles of res judicata in the present situation (Matter of Weiss v Franklin Sq. Munson Fire Dist., 309 N.Y. 52). The Department of Health in this case was concerned with controlling the flow of narcotic drugs to the public while the Education Department had as its objective the regulation of the conduct of licensed physicians. It is apparent that the purposes of the relevant provisions differ substantially. The basic dissimilarities presented necessitate the conclusion that res judicata is not applicable under these circumstances.

  3. Matter of Hanna v. Village of Catskill, Inc.

    3 A.D.2d 791 (N.Y. App. Div. 1957)

    Upon this record Hanna was clearly entitled to the benefits, and we think the circumstances justify the finding of liability on the part of the village. (See Matter of Weiss v. Franklin Sq. Munson Fire Dist., 309 N.Y. 52; Matter of Stevens v. Village of Smyrna, 281 App. Div. 918; Matter of Rocque v. Village of Waterford, 2 A.D.2d 716.) Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

  4. Verdugo v. Seven Thirty One Ltd. Partnership

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 32302 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009)

    Therefore, the standard by which the evidence was measured in the Workers' Compensation forum is identical to that which would be applied in this action. Balcerak v County of Nassau ( 94 NY2d 253, 701 NYS2d 700 and Weiss v Franklin Square and Munson Fire Dist. of Town of Hempstead, 309 NY 52), cited by plaintiffs are inapplicable. In both cases, the standard under which disability benefits was granted under one administrative agency was markedly different from the standard to be utilized by the other administrative agency ( Balcerak 258-261 [GML 207-c provides compensation for a correction officer "injured in the performance of his duties" due to the special work related to the nature of heightened risks and duties, whereas the more "general and comprehensive" Workers' Compensation Law provides all injured employees with some scheduled compensation regardless of fault; also, GML 207-c authorizes a municipality itself, not any other independent entity like the Workers' Compensation Board, to make the determination]; Weiss at 55 [GML 205 is a broader statute and not substantially identical with section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Law]).

  5. Verdugo v. Seven Thirty One Ltd. Pโ€™ship

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 33327 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009)

    Balcerak v County of Nassau (94 NY2d 253, 701 NYS2d 700 [1999] and Weiss v Franklin Square and Munson Fire Dist. of Town of Hempstead, 309 NY 52 [1955]), cited by plaintiffs are inapplicable. In both cases, the standard under which disability benefits was granted under one administrative agency was markedly different from the standard to be utilized by the other administrative agency (Balcerak 258-261 [GML 207-c provides compensation for a correction officer "injured in the performance of his duties" due to the special work related to the nature of heightened risks and duties, whereas the more ''general and comprehensive" Workers' Compensation Law provides all injured employees with some scheduled compensation regardless of fault; also, GML 207-c authorizes a municipality itself, not any other independent entity like the Workers' Compensation Board, to make the determination]; Weiss at 55 [GML 205 is a broader statute and not substantially identical with section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Law]).

  6. Matter of Long Is. Light. v. Horn

    49 Misc. 2d 717 (N.Y. Misc. 1964)   Cited 6 times

    ( Matter of Nash v. Brooks, 276 N.Y. 75.) However, an administrative determination is effective only for the purpose for which it was made ( Matter of Gibbs v. Wallin, 282 App. Div. 578) and the doctrine of res judicata does not apply as to issues not within the jurisdiction of the administrative agency (2 Am.Jur.2d 311, ยง 500; Matter of Weiss v. Franklin Sq. Munson Fire Dist., 309 N.Y. 52), or where there is no identity of issues. In our case what was determined by the Public Service Commission was that the proposed transmission line would not be unsafe, inadequate or improper. It made no determination on the effect of the proposed transmission line on the neighborhood character or the surrounding property values.

  7. Schnall v. 1918 Harmon St. Corp.

    26 Misc. 2d 287 (N.Y. Misc. 1960)   Cited 3 times

    e Workmen's Compensation Board, and jurisdiction to entertain this suit cannot be culled from the fact that the persons for whose benefit this action is brought happen to be persons not compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Law in a situation where there had been no dependents compensable under that law. If the decedent had lived he would have been entitled to a compensation award; and if he had been survived by a dependent, the latter would have been entitled to such an award. I shall assume at this point that, in order for the exclusive remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Law to obtain here as the controlling principle and for the matter of coverage to have effect as a binding adjudication, there must not only have been a finding by the board of an accident in the course of employment, but also that such finding must have been made in a proceeding before the board in which the decedent, or the plaintiff as his administrator, was a party (cf. Ogino v. Black, 304 N.Y. 872; Matter of Weiss v. Franklin Sq. Munson Fire Dist., 309 N.Y. 52, 55). On the facts on that issue, the defendant is in error in asserting that the proceedings before the Workmen's Compensation Board were instituted by the administrator.

  8. Ort v. Yulan Fire Department

    3 Misc. 2d 613 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 1956)

    The mere fact that, previously, petitioner's claim was denied in a proceeding before the Workmen's Compensation Board does not preclude recovery here. As stated in Matter of Weiss v. Franklin Square Munson Fire Dist. ( 309 N.Y. 52, 55): "Thus an adjudication against a volunteer fireman in a compensation proceeding does not include an adjudication that all factors are present which would constitute a valid claim for benefits under the General Municipal Law." The claim here is made against the Yulan Fire Department and the Town of Highland.