Claim of Goldsmith v. Good Humor Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Goldsmith v. Good Humor Corp.

18 A.D.2d 1114, 238 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4012

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

DecidedApril 4, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A.D.2d 1114 (Claim of Goldsmith v. Good Humor Corp.) 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 Goldsmith v. Good Humor Corp., 18 A.D.2d 1114, 238 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

The only issue on this appeal is whether there is substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that decedent’s mother was not dependent upon him at the time of death. The Referee’s determination of partial dependency was reversed. The board’s decision was: “ The Board finds no substantial evidence here of the mother’s partial dependency on her deceased son.” Upon this record, such a limited finding is erroneous. The testimony of claimant as to family income and expenses, if believed, could be the basis for dependency. To the contrary, the finding of the board could be affirmed if the determination stated that decedent’s contribution was for payment of board and room or upon the finding of credibility against the claimant. We are compelled to remit for more definite and determinative findings so that this court may intelligently review the decision. Decision reversed and matter remitted, with costs to the appellant against the State Insurance Fund. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

The only issue on this appeal is whether there is substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that decedent’s mother was not dependent upon him at the time of death. The Referee’s determination of partial dependency was reversed. The board’s decision was: “ The Board finds no substantial evidence here of the mother’s partial dependency on her deceased son.” Upon this record, such a limited finding is erroneous. The testimony of claimant as to family income and expenses, if believed, could be the basis for dependency. To the contrary, the finding of the board could be affirmed if the determination stated that decedent’s contribution was for payment of board and room or upon the finding of credibility against the claimant. We are compelled to remit for more definite and determinative findings so that this court may intelligently review the decision. Decision reversed and matter remitted, with costs to the appellant against the State Insurance Fund. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 1114, 238 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-goldsmith-v-good-humor-corp-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack