Claim of Gentner v. Rice
265 A.D. 1020, 38 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6664
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 13, 1943·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
[1021] Hill, P. J., Crapser, Heffernan and Schenck, JJ., concur; Bliss, J., dissents upon the ground that at the time of the first hearing there was on file with the Industrial Commissioner, and therefore before the referee and all parties, written notice that the carrier was controverting the case upon the ground that the notice of claim was not filed within the statutory period. This was ample compliance with section 28 of the statute and there was no waiver by the carrier of this objection.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Claim of Gentner v. Rice, 265 A.D. 1020, 38 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).
265 A.D. 1020 (Claim of Gentner v. Rice) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Claim Friedenzohn v. Three Star Offset Printing
176 A.D.2d 379 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)