Claim of Coyle v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

281 A.D. 933, 119 N.Y.S.2d 617
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 18, 1953
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 933 (Claim of Coyle v. Safeway Stores, Inc.) 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 Coyle v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 281 A.D. 933, 119 N.Y.S.2d 617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Opinion

Appeal by an employer and insurance earner from decisions and an award of death benefits made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Claimant’s deceased husband, a New York City resident, was employed as a truck driver by the employer-appellant, a foreign corporation having its main office in California and a divisional office and warehouse in Jersey City from which latter place it stocked its chain of retail food stores in New York City and elsewhere. Decedent’s principal duties were in operating the truck which made such deliveries to his employer’s stores in New York City as dispatched thereto from Jersey City. While in the performance of those duties he met with a fatal accidental experience in New York City. The only question presented is whether the Workmen’s Compensation Board in this State had jurisdiction to make the award. The employer’s conduct o£ its New York City stores constituted its doing business at the fixed location of those stores. Hence the employment of those persons whose duties confined their work performance at those places was located there. Decedent’s work was so chiefly and generally connected with and referable to the conduct of his employer’s business at those places as to justify the board’s finding that at the time of his fatal accidental experience the location of his employment was in this State. (Matter of Cameron v. Ellis Constr. Go., 252 N. Y. 394; Matter of Grasso V. Donaldson-Reynolds, Inc., 279 N. Y. 584; Matter of Adams v. Solomon Co., 265 App. Div. 427; Matter of Bams v. Consolidated Chimney Co., 270 App. Div. 70; Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 21, subd. 1.) Decisions and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Brewster, Bergan, Coon and Imrie, JJ.

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

Related

Claim of Rutledge v. Al. G. Kelly & Miller Bros. Circus
223 N.E.2d 334 (New York Court of Appeals, 1966)
Boyle v. G. & K. TRUCKING CO.
179 A.2d 514 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1962)
Claim of Cafiero v. P. Ballantine & Sons
1 A.D.2d 527 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 A.D. 933, 119 N.Y.S.2d 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-coyle-v-safeway-stores-inc-nyappdiv-1953.