Cimato v. John W. McGrath Corp.

45 A.D.2d 797, 357 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4636
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 25, 1974
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 45 A.D.2d 797 (Cimato v. John W. McGrath Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cimato v. John W. McGrath Corp., 45 A.D.2d 797, 357 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed April 24, 1973, which disallowed a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Claimant, a longshoreman, worked the eight o’clock to noon morning shift for his employer at Pier 10 on West Street in Manhattan. He testified that he went to lunch at noon, crossed heavily traveled West Street, went to an old union hall at 148 Liberty Street, ate at Liberty and West Streets which is two doors from said union hall and then walked to 107 Washington Street to a new union hall. Thereafter, in returning to his place of employment to work the afternoon shift commencing at one and while crossing West Street at its intersection with Carlyle Street, he was struck by a vehicle at about 12:45 p.m. Claimant was the recording secretary of a union local and shop steward at another pier and he related that he went to the union halls to make sure that his records had been moved and his going there was not at the direction of anyone connected with his employer. He was not paid for the lunch hour period. On this record the board could find that claimant was on a personal mission when involved in the accident, that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment as a longshoreman and that his undertaking of union business was a deviation from the course of employment, and, since these findings are supported by substantial evidence, they should not be disturbed (ef. Matter of Patti v. Republic Aviator Corp., 20 A D 2d 939, mot. for lv. to app. den. 14 N Y 2d 488; Matter of Solomon v. David Kay Corp., 7 A D 2d 811). Decision affirmed, without costs. Staley, Jr., J. P., Greenblott, Cooke, Kane and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Blades v. Commercial Transport, Inc.
30 S.W.3d 827 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2000)
New England Telephone Co. v. Ames
474 A.2d 571 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 A.D.2d 797, 357 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cimato-v-john-w-mcgrath-corp-nyappdiv-1974.