Claim of Kowalsky v. Grand Central Pan Am Building

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Kowalsky v. Grand Central Pan Am Building

67 A.D.2d 771, 412 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10416

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 771 (Claim of Kowalsky v. Grand Central Pan Am Building) 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 Kowalsky v. Grand Central Pan Am Building, 67 A.D.2d 771, 412 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10416 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed January 31, 1977, as amended by decision filed September 20, 1977. The board, in its amended decision, found: "based on Dr. Chassin’s testimony, no note was given to claimant’s employer regarding her prior condition, the employer has not submitted sufficient evidence to indicate that there was knowledge that claimant had a prior permanent condition. Based on all of the evidence, there is no Special Funds liability and Special Funds is discharged.” There is substantial evidence to sustain the determination of the board (see Matter of Carasia v New York Times Co., 65 AD2d 836). Decision affirmed, with costs to respondents filing briefs against appellants. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed January 31, 1977, as amended by decision filed September 20, 1977. The board, in its amended decision, found: "based on Dr. Chassin’s testimony, no note was given to claimant’s employer regarding her prior condition, the employer has not submitted sufficient evidence to indicate that there was knowledge that claimant had a prior permanent condition. Based on all of the evidence, there is no Special Funds liability and Special Funds is discharged.” There is substantial evidence to sustain the determination of the board (see Matter of Carasia v New York Times Co., 65 AD2d 836). Decision affirmed, with costs to respondents filing briefs against appellants. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 771, 412 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-kowalsky-v-grand-central-pan-am-building-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack