Claim of Holck v. Town of Hempstead—District No. 2

New York Court of Appeals

Claim of Holck v. Town of Hempstead—District No. 2

394 N.E.2d 281, 47 N.Y.2d 993, 420 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2233

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 10, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 394 N.E.2d 281 (Claim of Holck v. Town of Hempstead—District No. 2) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claim of Holck v. Town of Hempstead—District No. 2, 394 N.E.2d 281, 47 N.Y.2d 993, 420 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2233 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Claimant was injured while playing soccer outside his place of employment during a lunch break. His claim for compensation was disallowed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

There is no basis for disturbing the board’s decision. Whether claimant’s noontime recreational activity was an incident of employment so as to arise out of and in the course of employment is a question of fact (see, e.g., Matter of Brown v United Servs. for Air, 298 NY 901, affg 273 App Div 932; Matter of Beiring v Niagara Frontier Tr. System, 23 AD2d 611, mot for lv to app den 15 NY2d 485; Matter of Wilson v General Motors Corp., 272 App Div 845). It cannot be said on this record that the determination of the board is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, [995]*995Wachtler and Meyer concur in memorandum; Judge Fuchs-berg taking no part.

Order affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Claimant was injured while playing soccer outside his place of employment during a lunch break. His claim for compensation was disallowed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

There is no basis for disturbing the board’s decision. Whether claimant’s noontime recreational activity was an incident of employment so as to arise out of and in the course of employment is a question of fact (see, e.g., Matter of Brown v United Servs. for Air, 298 NY 901, affg 273 App Div 932; Matter of Beiring v Niagara Frontier Tr. System, 23 AD2d 611, mot for lv to app den 15 NY2d 485; Matter of Wilson v General Motors Corp., 272 App Div 845). It cannot be said on this record that the determination of the board is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, [995]*995Wachtler and Meyer concur in memorandum; Judge Fuchs-berg taking no part.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 N.E.2d 281, 47 N.Y.2d 993, 420 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-holck-v-town-of-hempsteaddistrict-no-2-ny-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack