Claim of Murphy v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Murphy v. New York City Transit Authority

38 A.D.2d 346, 329 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5200

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 346 (Claim of Murphy v. New York City Transit Authority) 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 Murphy v. New York City Transit Authority, 38 A.D.2d 346, 329 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinions

Sweeney, J.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed November 19, 1969, which denied a claim for compensation benefits.

The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether claimant’s injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment. Claimant was employed by the New York City Transit Authority as a clerk. He was assigned to a change booth located at the Pelham Bay station, working on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. On the day in question he left the booth at about 6:45 a.m. He took a train for which he had been issued a pass, proceeded five blocks, got off, went downstairs and while descending the stairs to the street, he fell and was injured. The board, in finding that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of claimant’s employment, stated ‘ ‘ he had completed his tour of duty, was on his way home, by route of his own choice, and had traveled a distance from his assigned place of work, removing him from the precincts of his place of employment”. There is substantial evidence to sustain the board. (Tallon v. Interborough R. T. Co., 232 N. Y. 410; Matter of Kowalek v. New York Cons. R. R. Co., 229 N. Y. 489; cf. Matter of Lane v. Fort Neck Dredging Co., 28 A D 2d 949, affd. 22 N Y 2d 965.) The cases relied upon by the claimant are factually distinguishable.

The decision should be affirmed, without costs.

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

Sweeney, J.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed November 19, 1969, which denied a claim for compensation benefits.

The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether claimant’s injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment. Claimant was employed by the New York City Transit Authority as a clerk. He was assigned to a change booth located at the Pelham Bay station, working on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. On the day in question he left the booth at about 6:45 a.m. He took a train for which he had been issued a pass, proceeded five blocks, got off, went downstairs and while descending the stairs to the street, he fell and was injured. The board, in finding that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of claimant’s employment, stated ‘ ‘ he had completed his tour of duty, was on his way home, by route of his own choice, and had traveled a distance from his assigned place of work, removing him from the precincts of his place of employment”. There is substantial evidence to sustain the board. (Tallon v. Interborough R. T. Co., 232 N. Y. 410; Matter of Kowalek v. New York Cons. R. R. Co., 229 N. Y. 489; cf. Matter of Lane v. Fort Neck Dredging Co., 28 A D 2d 949, affd. 22 N Y 2d 965.) The cases relied upon by the claimant are factually distinguishable.

The decision should be affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 346, 329 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-murphy-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack