Claim of Boucher v. Boucher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Boucher v. Boucher

73 A.D.2d 746, 423 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14824

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.2d 746 (Claim of Boucher v. Boucher) 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 Boucher v. Boucher, 73 A.D.2d 746, 423 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 22, 1978 and February 28, 1979, which reversed a referee’s decision and held that the claimant’s average weekly wage should be fixed pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 14 of the Workers’ Compensation Law and that the 260 multiple was applicable. The board found: "based on the evidence in the record and the testimony of the claimant that claimant was not a seasonal worker; that he was ready, willing and able to work when work was available. It is further found that neither Subdivision 1 nor Subdivision 2 of Section 14 applies since the claimant did not work substantially the whole of the year, nor is there a similar worker who worked substantially the whole of the year. Therefore neither of the methods [747]*747provided for in Subdivision 1 or 2 of section 14 can fairly and reasonably be applied and pursuant to Subdivision 3, section 14, find that the 260 multiple is applicable producing an average weekly wage of $223.33.” There is substantial evidence to sustain the determination of the board as amended (Matter of Palmer v Kaye Candies, 42 AD2d 661). Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier. Sweeney, J. P., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 22, 1978 and February 28, 1979, which reversed a referee’s decision and held that the claimant’s average weekly wage should be fixed pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 14 of the Workers’ Compensation Law and that the 260 multiple was applicable. The board found: "based on the evidence in the record and the testimony of the claimant that claimant was not a seasonal worker; that he was ready, willing and able to work when work was available. It is further found that neither Subdivision 1 nor Subdivision 2 of Section 14 applies since the claimant did not work substantially the whole of the year, nor is there a similar worker who worked substantially the whole of the year. Therefore neither of the methods [747]*747provided for in Subdivision 1 or 2 of section 14 can fairly and reasonably be applied and pursuant to Subdivision 3, section 14, find that the 260 multiple is applicable producing an average weekly wage of $223.33.” There is substantial evidence to sustain the determination of the board as amended (Matter of Palmer v Kaye Candies, 42 AD2d 661). Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier. Sweeney, J. P., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 746, 423 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-boucher-v-boucher-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack