Claim of Pergola v. Manhattan Beach Jewish Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Pergola v. Manhattan Beach Jewish Center

20 A.D.2d 943, 248 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3926

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

DecidedApril 29, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 943 (Claim of Pergola v. Manhattan Beach Jewish Center) 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 Pergola v. Manhattan Beach Jewish Center, 20 A.D.2d 943, 248 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3926 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board denying a claim on the ground that there was no accident, notice or causal relation. In disallowing the claim the board stated: “Upon review of the record we find no accident, no notice and no causal relation. The claim of accident seems to be an afterthought. No history of it was given to any one and no attempt to assert the claim was made until several months after the occurrence. His version of the occurrences of the day in question is almost incredible. The medical evidence introduced indicates that the condition is the result of the progression of a pre-existing arteriosclerotic heart disease.” ‘The decision of the board is supported by substantial evidence. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board denying a claim on the ground that there was no accident, notice or causal relation. In disallowing the claim the board stated: “Upon review of the record we find no accident, no notice and no causal relation. The claim of accident seems to be an afterthought. No history of it was given to any one and no attempt to assert the claim was made until several months after the occurrence. His version of the occurrences of the day in question is almost incredible. The medical evidence introduced indicates that the condition is the result of the progression of a pre-existing arteriosclerotic heart disease.” ‘The decision of the board is supported by substantial evidence. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 943, 248 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-pergola-v-manhattan-beach-jewish-center-nyappdiv-1964.