Claim of Dalaba v. Mt. View Cemetery Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Dalaba v. Mt. View Cemetery Ass'n

24 A.D.2d 688, 261 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3555

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 688 (Claim of Dalaba v. Mt. View Cemetery Ass'n) 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 Dalaba v. Mt. View Cemetery Ass'n, 24 A.D.2d 688, 261 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3555 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

— Herlihy, J.

The Special Disability Fund appeals from the board’s decision which determined it liable for compensation benefits pursuant to subdivision 8 of section 15. The claimant was hired as a laborer. His work included grave digging, mowing, painting and repairs. During the course of his employment he fell and injured his back and the board has found the Special Fund liable inasmuch as the employer had knowledge of a pre-existing physical impairment, the loss of his left index finger. The claimant testified that the loss of the finger did not interfere with his work and that the employer had knowledge of this permanent condition. The board found “ The employer is deceased and has not testified”. We note that the employer is a corporation and we assume that some employee of the employer is deceased and did not testify. The employer offered no other proof as to an “informed judgment” at the time of hiring. The fact that the claimant was able to do his work is immaterial. What is material is the fact that when he was employed in the first instance, he was suffering from an obvious physical impairment and the board was justified in finding that the employer observed the condition, had knowledge that it was a permanent impairment and inferentially that it was likely to be a handicap (Matter of Doroshenko v. General Motors Corp., 20 A D 2d 744). The condition was obvious to anyone who saw the claimant; that it was likely to adversely influence an employer in deciding whether to employ him was also self-evident. (Matter of Sheldon v. Doughty’s Laundry Serv., 4 A D 2d 909.) The factual situation comes within, the framework of our holding that whether the nature of the permanent injury is “so small as to have no measurable effect on employment ”, it is fairly debatable and therefore is in the area of fact finding. (Matter of Torelli v. Robert Hall Clothes, 9 A D 2d 147, 149.) Decision affirmed, with costs to respondents filing briefs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

— Herlihy, J.

The Special Disability Fund appeals from the board’s decision which determined it liable for compensation benefits pursuant to subdivision 8 of section 15. The claimant was hired as a laborer. His work included grave digging, mowing, painting and repairs. During the course of his employment he fell and injured his back and the board has found the Special Fund liable inasmuch as the employer had knowledge of a pre-existing physical impairment, the loss of his left index finger. The claimant testified that the loss of the finger did not interfere with his work and that the employer had knowledge of this permanent condition. The board found “ The employer is deceased and has not testified”. We note that the employer is a corporation and we assume that some employee of the employer is deceased and did not testify. The employer offered no other proof as to an “informed judgment” at the time of hiring. The fact that the claimant was able to do his work is immaterial. What is material is the fact that when he was employed in the first instance, he was suffering from an obvious physical impairment and the board was justified in finding that the employer observed the condition, had knowledge that it was a permanent impairment and inferentially that it was likely to be a handicap (Matter of Doroshenko v. General Motors Corp., 20 A D 2d 744). The condition was obvious to anyone who saw the claimant; that it was likely to adversely influence an employer in deciding whether to employ him was also self-evident. (Matter of Sheldon v. Doughty’s Laundry Serv., 4 A D 2d 909.) The factual situation comes within, the framework of our holding that whether the nature of the permanent injury is “so small as to have no measurable effect on employment ”, it is fairly debatable and therefore is in the area of fact finding. (Matter of Torelli v. Robert Hall Clothes, 9 A D 2d 147, 149.) Decision affirmed, with costs to respondents filing briefs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 688, 261 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-dalaba-v-mt-view-cemetery-assn-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack