Claim of Ford v. Spartan Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Ford v. Spartan Industries, Inc.

37 A.D.2d 651, 322 N.Y.S.2d 321

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

DecidedJune 24, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 651 (Claim of Ford v. Spartan Industries, 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 Ford v. Spartan Industries, Inc., 37 A.D.2d 651, 322 N.Y.S.2d 321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the carrier and employer from decisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed December 4, 1969 and March 23, 1970. The facts are undisputed. Claimant sustained an industrial accident on October 6, 1966 and the carrier accepted liability and made payments. Claimant’s attorney filed a notice of claim in a third-party action against the Port of New York Authority on December 5, 1966. The appellants were aware of this. The third-party action was commenced against the Port of New York Authority on October 9, 1967, just three days after the one-year Statute of Limitations for actions against the Port of New York Authority had run. This action was later discontinued by claimant’s attorney. At subsequent hearings appellants objected to an award on the ground that the discontinuance of the third-party action was without consent contrary to subdivision 5 of section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The board affirmed the Referee’s award and this appeal was taken. Since the one-year Statute of Limitations was a complete bar, the action against the Port of New York Authority had no validity. Consequently, a discontinuance could not prejudice appellants. (Matter of Risola v. Cohen & Son, 26 A D 2d 861; Matter of Janikowski v. Yardleys of London, 11 A D 2d 577.) Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the carrier and employer from decisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed December 4, 1969 and March 23, 1970. The facts are undisputed. Claimant sustained an industrial accident on October 6, 1966 and the carrier accepted liability and made payments. Claimant’s attorney filed a notice of claim in a third-party action against the Port of New York Authority on December 5, 1966. The appellants were aware of this. The third-party action was commenced against the Port of New York Authority on October 9, 1967, just three days after the one-year Statute of Limitations for actions against the Port of New York Authority had run. This action was later discontinued by claimant’s attorney. At subsequent hearings appellants objected to an award on the ground that the discontinuance of the third-party action was without consent contrary to subdivision 5 of section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The board affirmed the Referee’s award and this appeal was taken. Since the one-year Statute of Limitations was a complete bar, the action against the Port of New York Authority had no validity. Consequently, a discontinuance could not prejudice appellants. (Matter of Risola v. Cohen & Son, 26 A D 2d 861; Matter of Janikowski v. Yardleys of London, 11 A D 2d 577.) Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 651, 322 N.Y.S.2d 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-ford-v-spartan-industries-inc-nyappdiv-1971.