Claim of Copeland v. Schmuckler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Copeland v. Schmuckler

252 A.D. 904, 299 N.Y.S. 813, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6744

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D. 904 (Claim of Copeland v. Schmuckler) 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 Copeland v. Schmuckler, 252 A.D. 904, 299 N.Y.S. 813, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the State Industrial Board disallowing a claim for death benefits made by the widow of deceased employee. The claim was disallowed upon the ground that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment. Decedent was employed as a chauffeur and handyman around the house. While attempting to pass from a small to a larger boat he was drowned. The proof showed that he had not been directed to board the boat, that he did not have any duties to perform on this boat and that when he was on this boat he was there as a guest rather than an employee. Decision unanimously affirmed. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

— Appeal from a decision of the State Industrial Board disallowing a claim for death benefits made by the widow of deceased employee. The claim was disallowed upon the ground that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment. Decedent was employed as a chauffeur and handyman around the house. While attempting to pass from a small to a larger boat he was drowned. The proof showed that he had not been directed to board the boat, that he did not have any duties to perform on this boat and that when he was on this boat he was there as a guest rather than an employee. Decision unanimously affirmed. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D. 904, 299 N.Y.S. 813, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-copeland-v-schmuckler-nyappdiv-1937.