Claim of Brooks v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Brooks v. New York Telephone Co.

87 A.D.2d 701, 448 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16036

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 87 A.D.2d 701 (Claim of Brooks v. New York Telephone 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 Brooks v. New York Telephone Co., 87 A.D.2d 701, 448 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16036 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinions

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 27, 1981, which held that claimant’s accident arose out of and in the course of her employment. Claimant was injured when she slipped on snow while stepping out of a co-worker’s car which was parked in a privately owned lot adjacent to the employer’s premises. The incident occurred at approximately 5:30 a.m. on a workday scheduled to begin at 6:00 a.m. The board decision stated: “Upon review, the Board Panel finds based on claimant’s testimony, that claimant was in the precincts of her employment when she sustained her accident.” The employer contends that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. It. is undisputed that the employer neither owned the lot, nor was under, a duty to maintain it. Nonetheless, claimant testified that the employer designated an area within the lot for its employees to utilize, and reimbursed certain employees for their parking expenses. The co-worker’s car was assigned to spot number one in the designated section. In our view, the board could properly conclude that the need for claimant to cross the snow-covered parking lot constituted a risk of employment not shared by the general public (see Matter of Husted v Seneca Steel Serv., 41 NY2d 140, and cases cited therein; Matter of Neely v G. W. Morrison, Inc., 79 AD2d 803). Clearly, claimant had arrived to commence her workday and was in the process of entering the employment premises when injured. This case comes within the delineated “gray area” pronounced in Husted (supra, p 144) where an employee’s proximity to the employment situs brings the accident within the range of the employment. Finally, contrary to the employer’s contention, the board properly relied on facts set forth at an evidentiary hearing before the board (see 12 NYCRR 300.13 [a]). Since there is substantial evidence to support the board’s decision, it must be affirmed. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Sweeney, J. P., Main, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 27, 1981, which held that claimant’s accident arose out of and in the course of her employment. Claimant was injured when she slipped on snow while stepping out of a co-worker’s car which was parked in a privately owned lot adjacent to the employer’s premises. The incident occurred at approximately 5:30 a.m. on a workday scheduled to begin at 6:00 a.m. The board decision stated: “Upon review, the Board Panel finds based on claimant’s testimony, that claimant was in the precincts of her employment when she sustained her accident.” The employer contends that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. It. is undisputed that the employer neither owned the lot, nor was under, a duty to maintain it. Nonetheless, claimant testified that the employer designated an area within the lot for its employees to utilize, and reimbursed certain employees for their parking expenses. The co-worker’s car was assigned to spot number one in the designated section. In our view, the board could properly conclude that the need for claimant to cross the snow-covered parking lot constituted a risk of employment not shared by the general public (see Matter of Husted v Seneca Steel Serv., 41 NY2d 140, and cases cited therein; Matter of Neely v G. W. Morrison, Inc., 79 AD2d 803). Clearly, claimant had arrived to commence her workday and was in the process of entering the employment premises when injured. This case comes within the delineated “gray area” pronounced in Husted (supra, p 144) where an employee’s proximity to the employment situs brings the accident within the range of the employment. Finally, contrary to the employer’s contention, the board properly relied on facts set forth at an evidentiary hearing before the board (see 12 NYCRR 300.13 [a]). Since there is substantial evidence to support the board’s decision, it must be affirmed. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Sweeney, J. P., Main, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 701, 448 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-brooks-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack