Claim of Griffin v. Cruikshank Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Griffin v. Cruikshank Co.

227 A.D. 831

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1929

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 227 A.D. 831 (Claim of Griffin v. Cruikshank Co.) 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 Griffin v. Cruikshank Co., 227 A.D. 831 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Award modified [832]*832to cover period from September 22, 1923, to March 29, 1926, so as to exclude the period during which full wages were paid by the employer, on the authority of Matter of Sullivan v. Seely Son, Inc. (226 App. Div. 629); Bell v. Fraser (210 id. 560, 563); Matter of Rasmussen v. Park G. & M. Shop, Inc. (223 id. 591), and as so modified affirmed. Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman, Whitmyer and Hill, JJ., concur; Davis, J., dissents in part, and votes to credit the whole sum paid as wages on the amount of compensation awarded, on the ground that the claimant would be reaping an inequitable profit if he were allowed both wages and compensation, for the period of disability. (Matter of Fredenburg v. Empire U. Railways, Inc., 168 App. Div. 618, 623; Matter of Sullivan v. Seely Son, Inc., 226 id. 629.)

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

Award modified [832]*832to cover period from September 22, 1923, to March 29, 1926, so as to exclude the period during which full wages were paid by the employer, on the authority of Matter of Sullivan v. Seely Son, Inc. (226 App. Div. 629); Bell v. Fraser (210 id. 560, 563); Matter of Rasmussen v. Park G. & M. Shop, Inc. (223 id. 591), and as so modified affirmed. Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman, Whitmyer and Hill, JJ., concur; Davis, J., dissents in part, and votes to credit the whole sum paid as wages on the amount of compensation awarded, on the ground that the claimant would be reaping an inequitable profit if he were allowed both wages and compensation, for the period of disability. (Matter of Fredenburg v. Empire U. Railways, Inc., 168 App. Div. 618, 623; Matter of Sullivan v. Seely Son, Inc., 226 id. 629.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D. 831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-griffin-v-cruikshank-co-nyappdiv-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack