Claim of Farley v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Farley v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.

252 A.D. 903, 299 N.Y.S. 825, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6741

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D. 903 (Claim of Farley v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.) 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 Farley v. New York Rapid Transit Corp., 252 A.D. 903, 299 N.Y.S. 825, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6741 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Deceased employee was a platform attendant of the employer in its subway. He came to his death because of multiple injuries received when he was struck by a train. His duties ordinarily were discharged on the platform in aiding passengers; also he turned on or off tunnel lights; to do the latter he would ride from one subway station to another, the light switches being reached from a station platform. At times of emergency he was required to go upon the tracks; his purpose in going upon the tracks, upon the day of his injury, was not found by the Board, except that he went in discharge of his duties. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. 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

Deceased employee was a platform attendant of the employer in its subway. He came to his death because of multiple injuries received when he was struck by a train. His duties ordinarily were discharged on the platform in aiding passengers; also he turned on or off tunnel lights; to do the latter he would ride from one subway station to another, the light switches being reached from a station platform. At times of emergency he was required to go upon the tracks; his purpose in going upon the tracks, upon the day of his injury, was not found by the Board, except that he went in discharge of his duties. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present ■— Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D. 903, 299 N.Y.S. 825, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-farley-v-new-york-rapid-transit-corp-nyappdiv-1937.