Claim of Kirschenbaum v. Reliable Plastics Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Kirschenbaum v. Reliable Plastics Corp.

39 A.D.2d 621, 331 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4773

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

DecidedApril 27, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 39 A.D.2d 621 (Claim of Kirschenbaum v. Reliable Plastics 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 Kirschenbaum v. Reliable Plastics Corp., 39 A.D.2d 621, 331 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed April 15, 1971. The board affirmed the Referee’s finding of no compensable lost time, determining that appellant’s income from corporate respondent was salary for services performed. This amount exceeds a sum represented by the established average weekly wage. There is substantial evidence to support this determination and to reject appellant’s contention that a portion of this income represented profits and not earnings (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 15, subd. 5-a). Matter of Roberge v. United Bd. & Carton Corp. (21 A D 2d 713) is clearly distinguishable on its facts and does not require a contrary result. The issue presented being essentially one of fact, we are bound by the board’s determination (Matter of Kopec v. Buffalo Brake Beam-Acme Steel & Malleable Iron Works, 304 N. Y. 65). Decision affirmed, without costs. Staley, Jr., J. P., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed April 15, 1971. The board affirmed the Referee’s finding of no compensable lost time, determining that appellant’s income from corporate respondent was salary for services performed. This amount exceeds a sum represented by the established average weekly wage. There is substantial evidence to support this determination and to reject appellant’s contention that a portion of this income represented profits and not earnings (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 15, subd. 5-a). Matter of Roberge v. United Bd. & Carton Corp. (21 A D 2d 713) is clearly distinguishable on its facts and does not require a contrary result. The issue presented being essentially one of fact, we are bound by the board’s determination (Matter of Kopec v. Buffalo Brake Beam-Acme Steel & Malleable Iron Works, 304 N. Y. 65). Decision affirmed, without costs. Staley, Jr., J. P., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 621, 331 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-kirschenbaum-v-reliable-plastics-corp-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack