Claim of Mata v. Phœnix Construction Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Mata v. Phœnix Construction Associates

257 A.D. 1091, 14 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9216

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 1091 (Claim of Mata v. Phœnix Construction Associates) 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 Mata v. Phœnix Construction Associates, 257 A.D. 1091, 14 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant’s husband, the deceased employee, was drowned from falling off a dock alongside wMch the barge of wMch he was the watchman was moored. The employer and carrier assert that Ms death resulted solely by reason of his intoxication ; frather, that no award may be made because, as they say, he had left the barge, the place of Ms employment, and, therefore, had abandoned Ms employment. Under conditions of necessity he was permitted to leave the barge. As to the intoxi[1092]*1092cation, one witness testified that decedent and a companion, walking along arm in arm, staggered as they proceeded down the dock a short time before both fell into the river. This is not sufficient to show that the accident resulted solely from intoxication. (Matter of Westerman v. Equipment & Supply Co., Inc., 226 App. Div. 771; affd., 252 N. Y. 515.) Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffeman and Sehenek, JJ.

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

Claimant’s husband, the deceased employee, was drowned from falling off a dock alongside wMch the barge of wMch he was the watchman was moored. The employer and carrier assert that Ms death resulted solely by reason of his intoxication ; frather, that no award may be made because, as they say, he had left the barge, the place of Ms employment, and, therefore, had abandoned Ms employment. Under conditions of necessity he was permitted to leave the barge. As to the intoxi[1092]*1092cation, one witness testified that decedent and a companion, walking along arm in arm, staggered as they proceeded down the dock a short time before both fell into the river. This is not sufficient to show that the accident resulted solely from intoxication. (Matter of Westerman v. Equipment & Supply Co., Inc., 226 App. Div. 771; affd., 252 N. Y. 515.) Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffeman and Sehenek, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 1091, 14 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-mata-v-phnix-construction-associates-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack