Claim of Branciforte v. H. Kohnstamm & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Branciforte v. H. Kohnstamm & Co.

272 A.D.2d 855

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

DecidedMay 14, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 855 (Claim of Branciforte v. H. Kohnstamm & Co.) 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 Branciforte v. H. Kohnstamm & Co., 272 A.D.2d 855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the employer and” insurance carrier from decisions and awards which directed payments of compensation for the benefit of a dependent crippled child. Appellants contend that the claim, if compensable, should be made against the Special Fund because the application for reopening was within the periods specified in section 25-a. The board has ruled that since the original claim for death benefits, as filed by the mother, was still open the statutory periods of limitation had not begun to toll. We agree with this construction. There is evidence to sustain the finding that Mary Braneiforte was a dependent crippled child at the time of the accident within the meaning of section 16 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All concur. [See post, p. 966.]

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

Appeal by the employer and” insurance carrier from decisions and awards which directed payments of compensation for the benefit of a dependent crippled child. Appellants contend that the claim, if compensable, should be made against the Special Fund because the application for reopening was within the periods specified in section 25-a. The board has ruled that since the original claim for death benefits, as filed by the mother, was still open the statutory periods of limitation had not begun to toll. We agree with this construction. There is evidence to sustain the finding that Mary Braneiforte was a dependent crippled child at the time of the accident within the meaning of section 16 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All concur. [See post, p. 966.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-branciforte-v-h-kohnstamm-co-nyappdiv-1947.