Claim of Agrelli v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

255 A.D. 731, 6 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4939
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 21, 1938
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D. 731 (Claim of Agrelli v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.) 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
Claim of Agrelli v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 255 A.D. 731, 6 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Opinion

Claimant was injured on April 17, 1925. No question is raised as to the adequacy of the compensation paid him since that date except for the period from November 9, 1929, to October 31, 1932. At the time of the accident April 17, 1925, claimant was earning $29.48 per week as an electrical inspector. Between the above dates, November 9, 1929, to October 31, 1932, he earned as a watchman $33.51 per week, which was $4.03 more than he was earning at the time of the injury. Counsel for the claimant-appellant seeks a further allowance in the sum of $8 per week as reduced earnings during this period. In other words, counsel insists that under the pretext of reduced earnings claimant, who was making $29.48 a week at the time of his accident, should be allowed $41.51 during the above period; $33.51, his actual earnings, and $8 per week as reduced earnings. Claimant worked five and one-half days a week, nine hours per day, before the accident and he worked seven days a week after the accident. Subsequently after the rendering of this decision the Legislature amended section 15, subdivision 6, Workmen’s Compensation Law, by adding the following limiting words: “ but in no event shall compensation when combined with decreased earnings or earning capacity exceed the amount of wages which the employee was receiving at the time the injury occurred.” [See Laws of 1937, chap. 86.] Award unanimously affirmed. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffeman, JJ.

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

Related

Claim of Savino v. Pollack
33 A.D.2d 605 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 A.D. 731, 6 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-agrelli-v-interborough-rapid-transit-co-nyappdiv-1938.