Claim of Germain v. Times Square Stores

92 A.D.2d 657, 460 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16925
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 10, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 92 A.D.2d 657 (Claim of Germain v. Times Square Stores) 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 Germain v. Times Square Stores, 92 A.D.2d 657, 460 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed August 25, 1981, which found that claimant was a dependent of the deceased employee. Decedent, the son of claimant, sustained fatal injuries in an elevator accident on March 19, 1979. The board found that decedent, at the time of his death, contributed a substantial portion of his salary to claimant. In substance, the board also found that such contributions were used for a major portion of the household expenses and concluded that claimant was a dependent of decedent. This appeal ensued. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the board’s finding that claimant was dependent on her son within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The record reveals that claimant’s household consisted of herself, decedent, and another son who attended school, and that while she worked her salary was insufficient to cover all of her bills and decedent gave her his salary to help cover the expenses. Considering the record in its entirety and particularly the [658]*658total monthly expenses together with her salary and that contributed by decedent, we are of the opinion that the board could reasonably infer that claimant was detrimentally affected by the loss of decedent’s contributions (see Matter of Holloway v Camp Hatikvah, 14 AD2d 638). In our view, the decision of the board is supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, it should be affirmed (Matter of Hernandez v Frangella Bros., 64 AD2d 734). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Claim of Plew-Jourdanais v. Adirondack Heating & Frost Insulators, Inc.
80 A.D.3d 1111 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Claim of Umanzor v. General Telecom
9 A.D.3d 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Claim of Mizugami v. Sharin West Overseas, Inc.
183 A.D.2d 962 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Claim of Rodriguez v. Vogue Metalcraft, Inc.
96 A.D.2d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 A.D.2d 657, 460 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-germain-v-times-square-stores-nyappdiv-1983.