Claim of Gefers v. New York Window Cleaning Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Gefers v. New York Window Cleaning Co.

224 A.D. 792

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 224 A.D. 792 (Claim of Gefers v. New York Window Cleaning 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 Gefers v. New York Window Cleaning Co., 224 A.D. 792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Board has made three schedule awards to run consecutively; this is not permitted under the provisions of section 15, subdivision 3, of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. (Matter of Marhoffer v. Marhoffer, 220 N. Y. 543; Pinski v. Superior Fireproof Door & Sash Co., 209 App. Div. 305; Hinley v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 215 id. 857.) If the multiple injuries result in a greater aggregate disability than a loss of use of any one member, for which a schedule award can be made, an award may be made under paragraph u of subdivision 3. (Matter of Bernstein v. Hoffman, 219 App. Div. 152; Matter of Quinn v. Fanning, Inc., 221 id. 687; Matter of Schaeffer v. Buffalo Steel Car Co., Id. 808; Matter of Rubenstein v. Pechter Baking Co., ante, p. 324, decided herewith.) Van Kirk, P. J., Davis, Whitmyer, Hill and Hasbrouck, JJ., concur. Award reversed and claim remitted, with costs against the State Industrial Board to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

The Board has made three schedule awards to run consecutively; this is not permitted under the provisions of section 15, subdivision 3, of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. (Matter of Marhoffer v. Marhoffer, 220 N. Y. 543; Pinski v. Superior Fireproof Door & Sash Co., 209 App. Div. 305; Hinley v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 215 id. 857.) If the multiple injuries result in a greater aggregate disability than a loss of use of any one member, for which a schedule award can be made, an award may be made under paragraph u of subdivision 3. (Matter of Bernstein v. Hoffman, 219 App. Div. 152; Matter of Quinn v. Fanning, Inc., 221 id. 687; Matter of Schaeffer v. Buffalo Steel Car Co., Id. 808; Matter of Rubenstein v. Pechter Baking Co., ante, p. 324, decided herewith.) Van Kirk, P. J., Davis, Whitmyer, Hill and Hasbrouck, JJ., concur. Award reversed and claim remitted, with costs against the State Industrial Board to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D. 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-gefers-v-new-york-window-cleaning-co-nyappdiv-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack