Claim of Garvin v. Cleveland & Ryan, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Garvin v. Cleveland & Ryan, Inc.

255 A.D. 730, 6 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4937

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 730 (Claim of Garvin v. Cleveland & Ryan, 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 Garvin v. Cleveland & Ryan, Inc., 255 A.D. 730, 6 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4937 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by employer and its insurance carrier from an award in claimant’s favor. The sole question is whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. In the employer’s first report of injury it admits that the accident occurred at its pier and that claimant was injured in his regular occupation as a watchman. The employer is an electric contractor. On August 23, 1936, being the date of the accident, it was engaged in construction on a pier on the North river in the borough of Manhattan. Claimant was employed as a watchman. At about ten p. m. on that day while claimant was leaving the pier for the purpose of obtaining lunch he was struck by an automobile and sustained the injuries in question. The vice-president of the employer testified that claimant was on duty at all times and that he did not leave his employment while going to obtain lunch. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffeman, JJ.

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

Appeal by employer and its insurance carrier from an award in claimant’s favor. The sole question is whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. In the employer’s first report of injury it admits that the accident occurred at its pier and that claimant was injured in his regular occupation as a watchman. The employer is an electric contractor. On August 23, 1936, being the date of the accident, it was engaged in construction on a pier on the North river in the borough of Manhattan. Claimant was employed as a watchman. At about ten p. m. on that day while claimant was leaving the pier for the purpose of obtaining lunch he was struck by an automobile and sustained the injuries in question. The vice-president of the employer testified that claimant was on duty at all times and that he did not leave his employment while going to obtain lunch. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffeman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 730, 6 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-garvin-v-cleveland-ryan-inc-nyappdiv-1938.