Claim of Goldsmith v. Terminal System, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Goldsmith v. Terminal System, Inc.

19 A.D.2d 678, 241 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3487

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

DecidedJune 27, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 678 (Claim of Goldsmith v. Terminal System, 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 Goldsmith v. Terminal System, Inc., 19 A.D.2d 678, 241 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by employer and carrier from an award of disability compensation. Appellants challenge the method used by the hoard in determining claimant’s average weekly wage. Claimant was employed regularly on a full-time job as a delicatessen clerk. As a part-time job on every Sunday he.drove a taxi. He sustained an injury in the latter employment. The board has computed his weekly wage pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and arrived at an average weekly wage of $69.26 with a weekly compensation rate of $46.17, which is higher than his actual weekly compensation as a taxi driver. This is clearly a ease of dual and dissimilar employment, in fact it is conceded. Under the circumstances the board was justified in using the method authorized by subdivision 3 of section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. (Matter of Stallone v. Liebmann Breweries, 12 A D 2d 716, affd. 10 N Y 2d 907; Matter of Ednie v. Five Star Beverage Co., 16 A D 2d 845; Matter of Marlin v. Y N Cab Corp., 17 A D 2d 876.) Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson and Taylor, JJ., concur; Herlihy, J.: I concur on the authority of Matter of Stallone v. Liebmann Breweries (10 N Y 2d 907).

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

Appeal by employer and carrier from an award of disability compensation. Appellants challenge the method used by the hoard in determining claimant’s average weekly wage. Claimant was employed regularly on a full-time job as a delicatessen clerk. As a part-time job on every Sunday he.drove a taxi. He sustained an injury in the latter employment. The board has computed his weekly wage pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and arrived at an average weekly wage of $69.26 with a weekly compensation rate of $46.17, which is higher than his actual weekly compensation as a taxi driver. This is clearly a ease of dual and dissimilar employment, in fact it is conceded. Under the circumstances the board was justified in using the method authorized by subdivision 3 of section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. (Matter of Stallone v. Liebmann Breweries, 12 A D 2d 716, affd. 10 N Y 2d 907; Matter of Ednie v. Five Star Beverage Co., 16 A D 2d 845; Matter of Marlin v. Y N Cab Corp., 17 A D 2d 876.) Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson and Taylor, JJ., concur; Herlihy, J.: I concur on the authority of Matter of Stallone v. Liebmann Breweries (10 N Y 2d 907).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 678, 241 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-goldsmith-v-terminal-system-inc-nyappdiv-1963.