Claim of Leigh v. J. J. Dix, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Leigh v. J. J. Dix, Inc.

284 A.D. 919, 134 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4055

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D. 919 (Claim of Leigh v. J. J. Dix, Inc.) 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 Leigh v. J. J. Dix, Inc., 284 A.D. 919, 134 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board disallowing a claim for death benefits. Decedent was employed as a factory superintendent of the employer’s plant at Nos. 211-225 West 61st Street in New York City. On a Saturday, when the plant was closed, he paid a visit to the treasurer of his employer at No. 100 Riverside Drive. There is strong evidence that such visit was purely social and that plant matters were not discussed at all. Decedent’s widow testified that decedent went to the treasurer’s home to discuss the negotiation of a labor union contract, but this testimony was contradicted by other witnesses. After the visit was over decedent became involved in an automobile accident and sustained injuries which caused his death. The issue as to whether the accident arose out of and in the course of decedent’s employment is wholly factual, and the most that can be said for claimant’s position is that it involves conflicting testimony. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.

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

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board disallowing a claim for death benefits. Decedent was employed as a factory superintendent of the employer’s plant at Nos. 211-225 West 61st Street in New York City. On a Saturday, when the plant was closed, he paid a visit to the treasurer of his employer at No. 100 Riverside Drive. There is strong evidence that such visit was purely social and that plant matters were not discussed at all. Decedent’s widow testified that decedent went to the treasurer’s home to discuss the negotiation of a labor union contract, but this testimony was contradicted by other witnesses. After the visit was over decedent became involved in an automobile accident and sustained injuries which caused his death. The issue as to whether the accident arose out of and in the course of decedent’s employment is wholly factual, and the most that can be said for claimant’s position is that it involves conflicting testimony. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D. 919, 134 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-leigh-v-j-j-dix-inc-nyappdiv-1954.