Claim of Farber v. Harbor Shoes Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Farber v. Harbor Shoes Co.

22 A.D.2d 722, 253 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3061

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 722 (Claim of Farber v. Harbor Shoes 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 Farber v. Harbor Shoes Co., 22 A.D.2d 722, 253 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board allowing death benefits to the claimant widow. This case was previously affirmed by this court (12 A D 2d 578) but thereafter reversed and remitted by the Court of Appeals (10 N Y 2d 875) on the ground that the hypothetical question asked of claimant’s doctor included statements not supported by evidence and on the uncorroborated hearsay testimony of the claimant. The record now shows that upon remittal a new hypothetical question was proposed, eliminating the objectionable parts as found by the Court of Appeals. We have previously determined that there was substantial evidence to sustain the board’s finding. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board allowing death benefits to the claimant widow. This case was previously affirmed by this court (12 A D 2d 578) but thereafter reversed and remitted by the Court of Appeals (10 N Y 2d 875) on the ground that the hypothetical question asked of claimant’s doctor included statements not supported by evidence and on the uncorroborated hearsay testimony of the claimant. The record now shows that upon remittal a new hypothetical question was proposed, eliminating the objectionable parts as found by the Court of Appeals. We have previously determined that there was substantial evidence to sustain the board’s finding. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 722, 253 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-farber-v-harbor-shoes-co-nyappdiv-1964.