Claim of Miller v. Pierson & Williams

227 A.D. 675
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 15, 1929·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

— Motion to substitute administratrix granted. Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with ten dollars costs to the claimant against the employer and its insurance carrier, upon the ground that the award of eight hundred and eighty dollars and seventy cents had vested. (State ex rel. Munding v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 92 Ohio St. 434; 111 N. E. 299; United Collieries, Ltd., v. Hendry, 2 B. W. C. C. 308; Price v. Westminster Brymbo Coal Co., 8 id. 257.) Whitmyer, Hill and Hasbrouck, JJ., concur; Van Kirk, P. J., and Hinman, J., dissent on ground that “ compensation and benefits shall be paid only to employees or their dependents.” (Workmen’s Comp. Law, § 33) This award was benefits and remains such until paid. Upon the death of the widow of the deceased employee her claim abated and the award to her did not pass to her estate. No dependent survived to whom benefits could be paid.

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

Claim of Miller v. Pierson & Williams, 227 A.D. 675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

227 A.D. 675 (Claim of Miller v. Pierson & Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Claim of Harris v. Celbert Garage Corp.
29 A.D.2d 606 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1967)
Claim of Brown v. Central Coal Co.
3 A.D.2d 867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)
Claim of Stickle v. Westcott Garage
263 A.D. 699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1942)
Claim of Bartling v. General Electric Co.
231 A.D. 369 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1931)