Claim of Alwine v. Haines Car-Riers, Inc.

5 A.D.2d 892, 171 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6700
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 5, 1958
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 A.D.2d 892 (Claim of Alwine v. Haines Car-Riers, Inc.) 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 Alwine v. Haines Car-Riers, Inc., 5 A.D.2d 892, 171 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Opinion

Appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier for death benefits to the widow of a deceased employee. The employer owned and operated apartment buildings in Buffalo, New York, and employed the decedent as a general maintenance man. On March 20, 1955 he fell down a flight of stairs on one of the employer’s premises, and suffered severe head injuries and a ruptured spleen. He died a few days later from an unsuccessful operation to correct the condition caused by the ruptured spleen. It is the contention of the appellants that the record contains no substantial evidence to sustain the finding that the accident arose out of and in the course of decedent’s employment. One of the principal witnesses in the claim was a tenant who testified that she asked decedent to repair a damaged window in her apartment, and decedent fell when he was carrying the window sash from the storeroom to the second floor. It seems to be undisputed that there was a window sash found leaning against the wall at the foot of the stairs after the accident. The tenant to whom we have referred made prior contradictory statements to a private detective and on the trial she explained the inconsistencies by stating that she was frightened. The record presents nothing but questions of fact as we view it. The board was not barred from accepting the testimony of the tenant which was favorable to the claim simply because she had made prior inconsistent statements. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon and Gibson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Claim of Hamm v. USF Red Star
284 A.D.2d 793 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 A.D.2d 892, 171 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-alwine-v-haines-car-riers-inc-nyappdiv-1958.