Claim of Greenfield v. Goldrich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Greenfield v. Goldrich

26 A.D.2d 600, 271 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3863

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

DecidedJune 28, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 600 (Claim of Greenfield v. Goldrich) 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 Greenfield v. Goldrich, 26 A.D.2d 600, 271 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The board’s memorandum decision, whereby it reversed the Referee’s award and disallowed the claim, after reciting the carrier’s contention “ that claimant did not sustain an accident and that at most he only suffered a temporary ischemia and not an infarction”, found, upon substantial evidence, that claimant’s work as a practicing lawyer “neither involved nor induced emotional strain or tension greater than is involved in, or is induced by, the countless irritations commonly encountered in the usual practice of such profession in its daily activities without untoward results; that therefore claimant did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment.” We find no procedural or factual basis upon which the board’s decision could be disturbed. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The board’s memorandum decision, whereby it reversed the Referee’s award and disallowed the claim, after reciting the carrier’s contention “ that claimant did not sustain an accident and that at most he only suffered a temporary ischemia and not an infarction”, found, upon substantial evidence, that claimant’s work as a practicing lawyer “neither involved nor induced emotional strain or tension greater than is involved in, or is induced by, the countless irritations commonly encountered in the usual practice of such profession in its daily activities without untoward results; that therefore claimant did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment.” We find no procedural or factual basis upon which the board’s decision could be disturbed. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 600, 271 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-greenfield-v-goldrich-nyappdiv-1966.