Claim of Amoroso v. Tubular & Cast Products Manufacturing Co.
194 N.E.2d 694, 13 N.Y.2d 992
Opinions
Order affirmed, without costs. In our view there was no substantial evidence before the board upon which an award could be legally predicated. (See Matter of Miller v. National Cabinet Co., 8 N Y 2d 277; Matter of Riehl v. Town of Amherst, 308 N. Y. 212.)
Concur: Judges Fuld, Van Voobhis, Bubke and Scileppi. Judge Fosteb dissents in the following opinion in which Chief Judge Desmond and Judge Dye concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Claim of Amoroso v. Tubular & Cast Products Manufacturing Co., 194 N.E.2d 694, 13 N.Y.2d 992 (N.Y. 1963).
194 N.E.2d 694 (Claim of Amoroso v. Tubular & Cast Products Manufacturing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Matter of Murphy v. New York State Cts.
2022 NY Slip Op 00087 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Bolger v. Chris Anderson Roofing Co., Inc.
271 A.2d 451 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1970)