Claim of Hudson v. Waddington Construction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Hudson v. Waddington Construction

14 A.D.2d 463, 217 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10158

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

DecidedJune 16, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.2d 463 (Claim of Hudson v. Waddington Construction) 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 Hudson v. Waddington Construction, 14 A.D.2d 463, 217 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

[464]*464Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur; Herlihy, J., concurs in the result, in the following memorandum: I concur in the finding of the majority on the sole ground that recent heart eases have decided that the performance of causally related strenuous physical work, although the ordinary and regular job activity, is sufficient to constitute a heart accident. That being the test, a “push eat” operator engaged in heavy construction work, such as described in the majority decision, meets the required standards. (See Matter of Domash v. Standard Coat, Apron & Linen Serv., 11 A D 2d 575, 576, affd. 9 N Y 2d 889; Matter of Sczesniak v. Whitney, 12 A D 2d 366, 368; Matter of Schecter v. State Ins, Fund, 6 N Y 2d 506.) In my opinion, the finding of the board of “ emotional tensions on the job ” was not supported by substantial evidence.

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

[464]*464Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur; Herlihy, J., concurs in the result, in the following memorandum: I concur in the finding of the majority on the sole ground that recent heart eases have decided that the performance of causally related strenuous physical work, although the ordinary and regular job activity, is sufficient to constitute a heart accident. That being the test, a “push eat” operator engaged in heavy construction work, such as described in the majority decision, meets the required standards. (See Matter of Domash v. Standard Coat, Apron & Linen Serv., 11 A D 2d 575, 576, affd. 9 N Y 2d 889; Matter of Sczesniak v. Whitney, 12 A D 2d 366, 368; Matter of Schecter v. State Ins, Fund, 6 N Y 2d 506.) In my opinion, the finding of the board of “ emotional tensions on the job ” was not supported by substantial evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.2d 463, 217 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-hudson-v-waddington-construction-nyappdiv-1961.