Claim of Gurewicz v. 107 N. Fifth St. Corp.

48 A.D.2d 990, 369 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10296
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 26, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 48 A.D.2d 990 (Claim of Gurewicz v. 107 N. Fifth St. 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 Gurewicz v. 107 N. Fifth St. Corp., 48 A.D.2d 990, 369 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed May 23, 1974. It is not disputed that claimant, a part-time bartender, sustained a compensable accident on May 6, 1972. The sole issue is how the computation of benefits should be handled. The board found that claimant sustained a schedule loss of 714% of the left arm. However, since claimant only worked one day a week as a bartender for which he earned $25, the board computed the award pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law resulting in an average weekly wage of $96.15 and a rate of $64. The board could properly utilize this method on the instant record (e.g. Matter of Birtolo v First Housing Co., 41 AD2d 872; Matter of Ednie v Five Star Beverage Co., 16 AD2d 845; Matter of Stallone v Liebmann Breweries, 12 AD2d 716, affd 10 NY2d 907). Appellants would in effect have this court overrule these prior decisions but it is properly a function of the Legislature to effect such a change and it has not done so in the 15 years since the decision in Stallone. Nor is the limitation contained in subdivision 6 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law applica[991]*991ble since involved here is a schedule award. Accordingly, the decision of the board must be upheld. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P.J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Claim of Reasoner v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
110 A.D.2d 962 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Claim of Pfeffer v. Parkside Caterers, Inc.
364 N.E.2d 1334 (New York Court of Appeals, 1977)
Claim of Pfeffer v. Parkside Caterers, Inc.
53 A.D.2d 753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 A.D.2d 990, 369 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-gurewicz-v-107-n-fifth-st-corp-nyappdiv-1975.