Claim of Marlitt v. Armour & Co., Bleyl Division

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Marlitt v. Armour & Co., Bleyl Division

23 A.D.2d 717, 257 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4671

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 717 (Claim of Marlitt v. Armour & Co., Bleyl Division) 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 Marlitt v. Armour & Co., Bleyl Division, 23 A.D.2d 717, 257 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court. There was substantial evidence supportive of the award of reduced earnings for disability due to dermatitis, pursuant to the statutory provisions defining disability as “the state of being disabled from earning full wages at the work at which the employee was last employed ” and authorizing “ compensation 6 * * for the duration of [the] disablement” (italics supplied). (Workmen’s Compensation Daw, §§ 37, 39; Matter of Andrias v. Byan-Turecamo, 12 A D 2d 534, mot. for iv. to opp. den. 9 N Y 2d 609.) The contention that the loss of wages was not due to his disability, but was due to economic conditions and to a general layoff, could have been properly rejected on this record. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Memorandum by the Court. There was substantial evidence supportive of the award of reduced earnings for disability due to dermatitis, pursuant to the statutory provisions defining disability as “the state of being disabled from earning full wages at the work at which the employee was last employed ” and authorizing “ compensation 6 * * for the duration of [the] disablement” (italics supplied). (Workmen’s Compensation Daw, §§ 37, 39; Matter of Andrias v. Byan-Turecamo, 12 A D 2d 534, mot. for iv. to opp. den. 9 N Y 2d 609.) The contention that the loss of wages was not due to his disability, but was due to economic conditions and to a general layoff, could have been properly rejected on this record. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 717, 257 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-marlitt-v-armour-co-bleyl-division-nyappdiv-1965.