Claim of Nassar v. Masri Furniture & Merchandise, Inc.

91 A.D.3d 1022, 935 N.Y.2d 921
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 5, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 1022 (Claim of Nassar v. Masri Furniture & Merchandise, Inc.) 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 Nassar v. Masri Furniture & Merchandise, Inc., 91 A.D.3d 1022, 935 N.Y.2d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Stein, J.

We reject the employer’s contention that the record does not contain substantial evidence establishing that claimant’s injury was causally related to his employment. A number of witnesses testified that claimant worked for the employer during the time period in question. Moreover, both claimant and a coworker with whom he was working at the time he was injured testified that claimant was working for the employer lifting furniture when he hurt his back and neck. Claimant and the coworker further stated that the pain continued thereafter, requiring claimant to cease working. Any inconsistencies in the testimony or contrary testimony given by the employer presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Klamka v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 84 AD3d 1527, 1528 [2011]; Matter of Conyers v Van Rensselaer Manor, 80 AD3d 914, 916 [2011]), and it was not bound by the findings of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (see Matter of Jones v New [1023]*1023York State Dept. of Correction, 35 AD3d 1025, 1025 [2006]; Matter of Lewis v Cambridge Filter Corp., 132 AD2d 802, 803 [1987], lv dismissed 70 NY2d 871 [1987], lv denied 71 NY2d 805 [1988]). Furthermore, uncontradicted medical evidence was presented establishing a causal relationship between the injury that claimant sustained while lifting furniture at the employer’s premises and the disability to his back and neck. Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decisions.

Peters, J.P, Malone Jr., Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, with costs to claimant.

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

Related

Matter of Vankoevering v. New York State Canal Corp.
180 N.Y.S.3d 361 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Karam v. Rensselaer County Sheriff's Dept.
2018 NY Slip Op 8390 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Kinkhabwala v. ADP Totalsource Fl XIX Inc
2017 NY Slip Op 9212 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Cox v. Saks Fifth Avenue
130 A.D.3d 1236 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
In re the Claim of Dixon v. Plumbing
111 A.D.3d 1230 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Claim of McCluskey v. Certified Moving & Storage
106 A.D.3d 1349 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 A.D.3d 1022, 935 N.Y.2d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-nassar-v-masri-furniture-merchandise-inc-nyappdiv-2012.