Claim of Lasher v. Primo Producing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Lasher v. Primo Producing Co.

227 A.D. 676

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 227 A.D. 676 (Claim of Lasher v. Primo Producing 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 Lasher v. Primo Producing Co., 227 A.D. 676 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board, on the authority of Matter of Norris v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. (246 N. Y. 307); Domres v. Syracuse Safe Co. (211 App. Div. 823; affd., 240 N. Y. 611); Bountiful Brick Co. v. Giles (276 U. S. 154, 158). Van Kirk, P. J., Hill and Hasbrouek, JJ., concur; Davis and Whitmyer, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and remit, on the ground that it is evident from the record that the period of labor of the deceased employee had not yet begun, and that the accident did not occur in the course of any of the duties he was directed or called upon to perform; that the testimony of the union organizer, Rothenstein, was not based upon facts within his knowledge, but upon hearsay, opinions and conclusions; it, therefore, furnished no corroboration of the alleged declarations of the decedent, or the basis of a finding that the accidental [677]*677injuries arose out of and in the course of the employment. (Matter of Case, 214 N. Y. 199.)

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

Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board, on the authority of Matter of Norris v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. (246 N. Y. 307); Domres v. Syracuse Safe Co. (211 App. Div. 823; affd., 240 N. Y. 611); Bountiful Brick Co. v. Giles (276 U. S. 154, 158). Van Kirk, P. J., Hill and Hasbrouek, JJ., concur; Davis and Whitmyer, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and remit, on the ground that it is evident from the record that the period of labor of the deceased employee had not yet begun, and that the accident did not occur in the course of any of the duties he was directed or called upon to perform; that the testimony of the union organizer, Rothenstein, was not based upon facts within his knowledge, but upon hearsay, opinions and conclusions; it, therefore, furnished no corroboration of the alleged declarations of the decedent, or the basis of a finding that the accidental [677]*677injuries arose out of and in the course of the employment. (Matter of Case, 214 N. Y. 199.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D. 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-lasher-v-primo-producing-co-nyappdiv-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack