Claim of Balsam v. New York State Division of Employment

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Balsam v. New York State Division of Employment

24 A.D.2d 802, 263 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3241

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 22, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 802 (Claim of Balsam v. New York State Division of Employment) 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 Balsam v. New York State Division of Employment, 24 A.D.2d 802, 263 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Taylor, J.

An employer and its carrier appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board finding that the [803]*803accident which befell claimant on December 11, 1963 arose out of and in the course of her employment. The facts are undisputed. The employer had authorized a 15-minute midmorning rest period during which employees were permitted to leave its premises for the purpose of going to a neighborhood shop for coffee. On the day of injury claimant, a stenographer, departed from the premises during the coffee break but went directly to a nearby bank for the purpose of cashing a personal cheek. A fall on its highly polished floor resulted in an injury found to be compensable. Claimant testified to an intention of getting coffee upon the completion of the banking errand. We think that the coffee break rule which rests essentially on the theory of constructive control of the employee by the employer during the off-premises activity (Matter of Caporale v. State Dept. of Taxation & Finance, 2 A D 2d 91, affd. 2 N Y 2d 946) should not be extended to a case where, as here, the employee when injured had deviated from a prescribed sphere of recreational endeavor to embark upon a purely personal mission. Decision reversed and claim dismissed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Taylor, J.

An employer and its carrier appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board finding that the [803]*803accident which befell claimant on December 11, 1963 arose out of and in the course of her employment. The facts are undisputed. The employer had authorized a 15-minute midmorning rest period during which employees were permitted to leave its premises for the purpose of going to a neighborhood shop for coffee. On the day of injury claimant, a stenographer, departed from the premises during the coffee break but went directly to a nearby bank for the purpose of cashing a personal cheek. A fall on its highly polished floor resulted in an injury found to be compensable. Claimant testified to an intention of getting coffee upon the completion of the banking errand. We think that the coffee break rule which rests essentially on the theory of constructive control of the employee by the employer during the off-premises activity (Matter of Caporale v. State Dept. of Taxation & Finance, 2 A D 2d 91, affd. 2 N Y 2d 946) should not be extended to a case where, as here, the employee when injured had deviated from a prescribed sphere of recreational endeavor to embark upon a purely personal mission. Decision reversed and claim dismissed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 802, 263 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-balsam-v-new-york-state-division-of-employment-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack