Claim of Bramer v. Laratonda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Bramer v. Laratonda

8 A.D.2d 876, 186 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8280

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

DecidedJune 9, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.2d 876 (Claim of Bramer v. Laratonda) 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 Bramer v. Laratonda, 8 A.D.2d 876, 186 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

'Appeal by.an employer and his insurance carrier from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Appellants contend that the accident (1) did not arise out of and in the course of the employment and (2) was caused solely by claimant’s intoxication. The board was entitled to accept claimant’s testimony that the fall which resulted in his injury occurred while he was cutting a steel beam in the course of his usual work, and thus to reject the testimony of the employer and his son that the accident occurred after claimant had been told to quit because he was intoxicated. The issue of intoxication was also purely factual. Claimant denied that he had imbibed any alcoholic beverage and the presumption is that the injury did not result solely from intoxication (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 21, subd. 4). Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Gibson and Reynolds, JJ.

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

'Appeal by.an employer and his insurance carrier from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Appellants contend that the accident (1) did not arise out of and in the course of the employment and (2) was caused solely by claimant’s intoxication. The board was entitled to accept claimant’s testimony that the fall which resulted in his injury occurred while he was cutting a steel beam in the course of his usual work, and thus to reject the testimony of the employer and his son that the accident occurred after claimant had been told to quit because he was intoxicated. The issue of intoxication was also purely factual. Claimant denied that he had imbibed any alcoholic beverage and the presumption is that the injury did not result solely from intoxication (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 21, subd. 4). Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Gibson and Reynolds, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 876, 186 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-bramer-v-laratonda-nyappdiv-1959.