Claim of Biro v. Flash-O-Graph Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Biro v. Flash-O-Graph Corp.

24 A.D.2d 671, 261 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3669

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 671 (Claim of Biro v. Flash-O-Graph 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

Claim of Biro v. Flash-O-Graph Corp., 24 A.D.2d 671, 261 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appellants seek to assert here that a nonindustrial boat accident may have been a partial contributing factor to claimant’s total disability. This issue, however, was not brought to the attention of the board in their application for board review and thus cannot be raised here (Matter of Hamilton v. Transport Workers Union, 21 A D 2d 434, affd. 16 N Y 2d 696; Matter of Chersi v. Lulich Constr. Co., 19 A D 2d 672; Matter of Hedlund v. United Exposition Decorating Co., 15 A D 2d 973, mot. for lv. to app. den. 11 [672]*672N Y 2d 646). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur,

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

Reynolds, J.

Appellants seek to assert here that a nonindustrial boat accident may have been a partial contributing factor to claimant’s total disability. This issue, however, was not brought to the attention of the board in their application for board review and thus cannot be raised here (Matter of Hamilton v. Transport Workers Union, 21 A D 2d 434, affd. 16 N Y 2d 696; Matter of Chersi v. Lulich Constr. Co., 19 A D 2d 672; Matter of Hedlund v. United Exposition Decorating Co., 15 A D 2d 973, mot. for lv. to app. den. 11 [672]*672N Y 2d 646). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 671, 261 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-biro-v-flash-o-graph-corp-nyappdiv-1965.