Claim of Parkinson v. Lavina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Parkinson v. Lavina

272 A.D.2d 841

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

DecidedMay 7, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 841 (Claim of Parkinson v. Lavina) 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 Parkinson v. Lavina, 272 A.D.2d 841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Brewster, J.

(dissenting). I dissent. Claimants’ proofs established that the average monthly living expenses of the family of which they were members exceeded the total family income including the contributions of deceased. They were partially dependent on charity. I can find no evidence which may be said to establish that the decedent’s contributions produced any net return to the family fund over and above the portion consumed for his own support and maintenance. It has been repeatedly held that the mere fact of such contributions to a family fund is insufficient to establish dependency. That they pro[842]*842duced a net amount over and above the cost of the contributor’s maintenance, that such net amount was substantial in view of circumstances shown and that it was looked to and actually and necessarily used for the support of the persons who may be deemed dependents — all this was for the claimants to prove. (Matter of Novick v. Gimbel Brothers, 232 N. Y. 508; Matter of Sigalove v. Penzel, 218 App. Div. 306; Matter of Kelley v. Hoefler Ice Cream Co., 196 App. Div. 800; Matter of Birmingham v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 180 App. Div. 48; Matter of Tirre v. Bush Terminal Co., 172 App. Div. 386.) It has been held that the dependency awardable under the act imports a definite “ measure of subjection ” and “ involves reliance upon earnings for education or support.” (Matter of Zirpola v. Casselman, Inc., 237 N. Y. 367, 371-372.) The father’s categorical affirmance of the proposition which required proof cannot, in the light of what is shown and in the absence of other relevant proof, be considered any evidence of the dependency of the mother and sister of the deceased.

The decision and award appealed from should be reversed and the matter remitted for an award to the appropriate special funds.

Hill, P., J., Heffernan and Bussell, JJ., concur in decision; Brewster, J., dissents in a memorandum in which Foster, J., concurs.

Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

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

Brewster, J.

(dissenting). I dissent. Claimants’ proofs established that the average monthly living expenses of the family of which they were members exceeded the total family income including the contributions of deceased. They were partially dependent on charity. I can find no evidence which may be said to establish that the decedent’s contributions produced any net return to the family fund over and above the portion consumed for his own support and maintenance. It has been repeatedly held that the mere fact of such contributions to a family fund is insufficient to establish dependency. That they pro[842]*842duced a net amount over and above the cost of the contributor’s maintenance, that such net amount was substantial in view of circumstances shown and that it was looked to and actually and necessarily used for the support of the persons who may be deemed dependents — all this was for the claimants to prove. (Matter of Novick v. Gimbel Brothers, 232 N. Y. 508; Matter of Sigalove v. Penzel, 218 App. Div. 306; Matter of Kelley v. Hoefler Ice Cream Co., 196 App. Div. 800; Matter of Birmingham v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 180 App. Div. 48; Matter of Tirre v. Bush Terminal Co., 172 App. Div. 386.) It has been held that the dependency awardable under the act imports a definite “ measure of subjection ” and “ involves reliance upon earnings for education or support.” (Matter of Zirpola v. Casselman, Inc., 237 N. Y. 367, 371-372.) The father’s categorical affirmance of the proposition which required proof cannot, in the light of what is shown and in the absence of other relevant proof, be considered any evidence of the dependency of the mother and sister of the deceased.

The decision and award appealed from should be reversed and the matter remitted for an award to the appropriate special funds.

Hill, P., J., Heffernan and Bussell, JJ., concur in decision; Brewster, J., dissents in a memorandum in which Foster, J., concurs.

Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-parkinson-v-lavina-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack