Claim of Maiello v. Electra Supply Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Maiello v. Electra Supply Co.

43 A.D.2d 779, 350 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2827

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 43 A.D.2d 779 (Claim of Maiello v. Electra Supply 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 Maiello v. Electra Supply Co., 43 A.D.2d 779, 350 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board excusing claimant’s late filing of his compensation claim (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 18). In January of 1971 claimant, a shipping clerk, allegedly sustained a herniated disc while lifting a roll of wire at work. His claim for compensation was not, however, initiated until August 15, 1971, well beyond the 30 days allotted by section 18 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The board excused the statutory notice requirement and permitted the claim to be filed on the grounds that “claimant did not realize the extent of the injury, diagnosed as a pulled muscle, and that he notified the employer when the condition worsened and he realized its seriousness.” This finding is clearly supported by the instant record and thus the board’s determination must therefore be affirmed (Matter of Clemens v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp., 25 A D 2d 899, mot. for iv. to opp. den. 18 N Y 2d 578). Prejudice to the employer is not an issue when, as here, the delay was excused (Matter of Clemens v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp., supra; cf. Matter of Zraunig v. New York Tel. Co., 32 A D 2d 686). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Sweeney, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board excusing claimant’s late filing of his compensation claim (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 18). In January of 1971 claimant, a shipping clerk, allegedly sustained a herniated disc while lifting a roll of wire at work. His claim for compensation was not, however, initiated until August 15, 1971, well beyond the 30 days allotted by section 18 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The board excused the statutory notice requirement and permitted the claim to be filed on the grounds that “claimant did not realize the extent of the injury, diagnosed as a pulled muscle, and that he notified the employer when the condition worsened and he realized its seriousness.” This finding is clearly supported by the instant record and thus the board’s determination must therefore be affirmed (Matter of Clemens v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp., 25 A D 2d 899, mot. for iv. to opp. den. 18 N Y 2d 578). Prejudice to the employer is not an issue when, as here, the delay was excused (Matter of Clemens v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp., supra; cf. Matter of Zraunig v. New York Tel. Co., 32 A D 2d 686). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Sweeney, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 779, 350 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-maiello-v-electra-supply-co-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack