Claim of Hawkins v. Statler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Hawkins v. Statler

265 A.D. 976, 38 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6800

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D. 976 (Claim of Hawkins v. Statler) 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 Hawkins v. Statler, 265 A.D. 976, 38 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

No such award shall be made unless three members of the board shall have reviewed the claim and except by affirmative vote of at least two of such three members.” The State Industrial Board has found, following the unanimous opinion of the three reviewing members of the Board, that the appellants are not entitled to review by the full Board, and the application of the Special Fund for a review by the full Board was denied. The finding of the Board that section 25-a is controlling was in accordance with the provisions* of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Matter of Stapholtz v. Rothman Co., 260 App. Div. 818) and the application of the Special Fund for a review by the full Board was properly denied. The award should be affirmed. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Schenck and Foster, JJ.

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

No such award shall be made unless three members of the board shall have reviewed the claim and except by affirmative vote of at least two of such three members.” The State Industrial Board has found, following the unanimous opinion of the three reviewing members of the Board, that the appellants are not entitled to review by the full Board, and the application of the Special Fund for a review by the full Board was denied. The finding of the Board that section 25-a is controlling was in accordance with the provisions* of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Matter of Stapholtz v. Rothman Co., 260 App. Div. 818) and the application of the Special Fund for a review by the full Board was properly denied. The award should be affirmed. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Schenck and Foster, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D. 976, 38 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-hawkins-v-statler-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack