Claim of Fabian v. Link Division-General Precision, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Fabian v. Link Division-General Precision, Inc.

22 A.D.2d 725, 253 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2987

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 A.D.2d 725 (Claim of Fabian v. Link Division-General Precision, 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 Fabian v. Link Division-General Precision, Inc., 22 A.D.2d 725, 253 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2987 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which awarded disability benefits during a two-week vacation period. Claimant, Albert J. Fabian, Sr., was disabled by illness which was not connected with his employment from June 19, 1962, to September 10, 1962. He was paid disability benefits for this period, except for July 16, 1962, through July 29,1962. This two-week period was the annual plant vacation shutdown and claimant received vacation pay for this period from the employer. The sole issue presented is whether or not claimant is [726]*726entitled to disability benefits for this two-.week period during which he received vacation pay. We believe that Matter of Knaszak v. Buffalo Forge Co. (15 A D 2d 971) is controlling in the instant case. The Referee found, and the board affirmed, that claimant’s vacation pay was intended solely as a delayed payment for past services. There is ample evidence to support the conclusion of the board. The employer’s witness testified that it was an established policy to have a two-weeks’ period for vacation with pay for an employee who had worked for at least a year. An employee who was laid off also qualified for vacation pay which was figured on a formula based on the time he had worked. This right to vacation pay was also subject to maximum allowances for absences. Although there was no union contract, the unilateral policy of employer results in the same effect of having the vacation payments due for prior services. Upon the facts presented here, it was not error to conclude that the payments did not constitute remuneration for the two weeks in question within the meaning of article 9 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Aulisi, J.

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which awarded disability benefits during a two-week vacation period. Claimant, Albert J. Fabian, Sr., was disabled by illness which was not connected with his employment from June 19, 1962, to September 10, 1962. He was paid disability benefits for this period, except for July 16, 1962, through July 29,1962. This two-week period was the annual plant vacation shutdown and claimant received vacation pay for this period from the employer. The sole issue presented is whether or not claimant is [726]*726entitled to disability benefits for this two-.week period during which he received vacation pay. We believe that Matter of Knaszak v. Buffalo Forge Co. (15 A D 2d 971) is controlling in the instant case. The Referee found, and the board affirmed, that claimant’s vacation pay was intended solely as a delayed payment for past services. There is ample evidence to support the conclusion of the board. The employer’s witness testified that it was an established policy to have a two-weeks’ period for vacation with pay for an employee who had worked for at least a year. An employee who was laid off also qualified for vacation pay which was figured on a formula based on the time he had worked. This right to vacation pay was also subject to maximum allowances for absences. Although there was no union contract, the unilateral policy of employer results in the same effect of having the vacation payments due for prior services. Upon the facts presented here, it was not error to conclude that the payments did not constitute remuneration for the two weeks in question within the meaning of article 9 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 725, 253 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-fabian-v-link-division-general-precision-inc-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack