Claim of Murtagh v. New York Times

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Murtagh v. New York Times

52 A.D.2d 1009, 383 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12901

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

DecidedMay 27, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 1009 (Claim of Murtagh v. New York Times) 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 Murtagh v. New York Times, 52 A.D.2d 1009, 383 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed April 11, 1974, which found that the claimant did not sustain an accident or an occupational injury in the course of his employment. Claimant, a news service clerk, states that he sustained a heel injury on October 9, 1962 caused by all the walking entailed in his job. This claim has been before the board on a number of occasions and has been previously disallowed. The record also discloses that over a period of 10 years claimant has been afforded every opportunity to prove his case. The well-established rule that issues of fact raised by conflicting evidence are within the sole province of the board and, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed, does not require the citation of authorities. We conclude that the evidence contained in this record is more than ample to support the board’s determi[1010]*1010nation. Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed April 11, 1974, which found that the claimant did not sustain an accident or an occupational injury in the course of his employment. Claimant, a news service clerk, states that he sustained a heel injury on October 9, 1962 caused by all the walking entailed in his job. This claim has been before the board on a number of occasions and has been previously disallowed. The record also discloses that over a period of 10 years claimant has been afforded every opportunity to prove his case. The well-established rule that issues of fact raised by conflicting evidence are within the sole province of the board and, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed, does not require the citation of authorities. We conclude that the evidence contained in this record is more than ample to support the board’s determi[1010]*1010nation. Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 1009, 383 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-murtagh-v-new-york-times-nyappdiv-1976.