Claim of Kinkela v. Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Kinkela v. Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co.

263 A.D. 770, 30 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4873

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D. 770 (Claim of Kinkela v. Thomas Crimmins Contracting 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 Kinkela v. Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co., 263 A.D. 770, 30 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision which rescinds an earlier one commuting an award of ninety-five per cent loss of use of left leg and eighty-five weeks’ protracted temporary total disability. Commutation was made under section 17 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, upon the application of the carrier upon a finding that claimant who was an alien was about to become a non-resident. The present decision, from which the appeal is before us, rescinds upon the theory that claimant did not intend to become a non-resident, but only to go to Italy for a brief visit. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Heffernan, Sehenck and Foster, JJ.

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

Appeal from a decision which rescinds an earlier one commuting an award of ninety-five per cent loss of use of left leg and eighty-five weeks’ protracted temporary total disability. Commutation was made under section 17 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, upon the application of the carrier upon a finding that claimant who was an alien was about to become a non-resident. The present decision, from which the appeal is before us, rescinds upon the theory that claimant did not intend to become a non-resident, but only to go to Italy for a brief visit. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Heffernan, Sehenck and Foster, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 770, 30 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-kinkela-v-thomas-crimmins-contracting-co-nyappdiv-1941.