Claim of Podola v. Crescent Box Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Podola v. Crescent Box Manufacturing Co.

256 A.D. 1016, 10 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5897

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 1016 (Claim of Podola v. Crescent Box Manufacturing Co.) 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 Podola v. Crescent Box Manufacturing Co., 256 A.D. 1016, 10 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the State Insurance Fund from an award in claimant’s favor for seventy per cent loss of use of the right hand. The employer has also appealed from a like award imposed against it pursuant to the provisions of section 14-a of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The State Industrial Board found that at the time of the accident the employer violated section 146, subdivision 7, of the Labor Law in that claimant was under the age of eighteen years and was employed to clean machinery while in motion. The State Industrial Board found that on January 23, 1936, while the claimant was engaged in his regular occupation and while cleaning an electric circular saw, a machine in motion, his right hand came in contact with the rotating saw causing the injuries for which the award was made. There is evidence to sustain the finding of the Board. There is also evidence to sustain the Board’s finding that claimant was directed by the employer to clean the cutting machine while the same was in motion. The evidence also sustains the finding of the State Industrial Board that the employer was guilty of a violation of section 146, subdivision 7, of the Labor Law. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffeman, JJ.

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

Appeal by the State Insurance Fund from an award in claimant’s favor for seventy per cent loss of use of the right hand. The employer has also appealed from a like award imposed against it pursuant to the provisions of section 14-a of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The State Industrial Board found that at the time of the accident the employer violated section 146, subdivision 7, of the Labor Law in that claimant was under the age of eighteen years and was employed to clean machinery while in motion. The State Industrial Board found that on January 23, 1936, while the claimant was engaged in his regular occupation and while cleaning an electric circular saw, a machine in motion, his right hand came in contact with the rotating saw causing the injuries for which the award was made. There is evidence to sustain the finding of the Board. There is also evidence to sustain the Board’s finding that claimant was directed by the employer to clean the cutting machine while the same was in motion. The evidence also sustains the finding of the State Industrial Board that the employer was guilty of a violation of section 146, subdivision 7, of the Labor Law. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffeman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 1016, 10 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-podola-v-crescent-box-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1939.