Claim of Miller v. De Parma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Miller v. De Parma

261 A.D. 1021, 25 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8578

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 1021 (Claim of Miller v. De Parma) 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 Miller v. De Parma, 261 A.D. 1021, 25 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

The employer and its insurance carrier have appealed from a decision and award of the State Industrial Board making an award in claimant’s favor. Claimant was employed as a porter. The State Industrial Board found that on November 11, 1939, claimant sustained the injuries, for which the award was made, while cleaning windows at the place where he worked. The appellants contend that the injury was occasioned solely by reason of claimant’s intoxication. That is the only issue in this case. The State Industrial Board found that claimant was not intoxicated at the time his injuries were sustained. There is evidence to sustain that finding. Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Hill, P. J., Bliss, Heffernan and Foster, JJ., concur; Crapser, J., dissents and votes to reverse the award and to dismiss the claim, on the ground that all the evidence in the case indicates that the accident was caused solely because of intoxication.

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

The employer and its insurance carrier have appealed from a decision and award of the State Industrial Board making an award in claimant’s favor. Claimant was employed as a porter. The State Industrial Board found that on November 11, 1939, claimant sustained the injuries, for which the award was made, while cleaning windows at the place where he worked. The appellants contend that the injury was occasioned solely by reason of claimant’s intoxication. That is the only issue in this case. The State Industrial Board found that claimant was not intoxicated at the time his injuries were sustained. There is evidence to sustain that finding. Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Hill, P. J., Bliss, Heffernan and Foster, JJ., concur; Crapser, J., dissents and votes to reverse the award and to dismiss the claim, on the ground that all the evidence in the case indicates that the accident was caused solely because of intoxication.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 1021, 25 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-miller-v-de-parma-nyappdiv-1941.