Claim of Morehouse v. Town of Bolton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Morehouse v. Town of Bolton

19 A.D.2d 665

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

DecidedJune 27, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 665 (Claim of Morehouse v. Town of Bolton) 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 Morehouse v. Town of Bolton, 19 A.D.2d 665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In this second-injury case, appellants rely solely on the testimony of the employer’s foreman but this was merely that he knew that claimant “ had a back condition before ”; and, on cross-examination, he admitted that he did not “consider it” when hiring claimant. Thus, there is no proof that the employer hired claimant as a handicapped person or, indeed, that he could know or infer either the nature of the back condition or its permanency. (Matter of Vance v. Ormsby, 6 A D 2d 960; Matter of Weinberger v. Zeibert é Sons, 2 A D 2d 908.) Contrary to appellants’ contention, the decision was made and signed by a board panel, but as appellants were not furnished with a complete copy thereof prior to printing of the record we do not award costs. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

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

In this second-injury case, appellants rely solely on the testimony of the employer’s foreman but this was merely that he knew that claimant “ had a back condition before ”; and, on cross-examination, he admitted that he did not “consider it” when hiring claimant. Thus, there is no proof that the employer hired claimant as a handicapped person or, indeed, that he could know or infer either the nature of the back condition or its permanency. (Matter of Vance v. Ormsby, 6 A D 2d 960; Matter of Weinberger v. Zeibert é Sons, 2 A D 2d 908.) Contrary to appellants’ contention, the decision was made and signed by a board panel, but as appellants were not furnished with a complete copy thereof prior to printing of the record we do not award costs. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-morehouse-v-town-of-bolton-nyappdiv-1963.