Claim of Richeal v. Eckert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Richeal v. Eckert

262 A.D. 788, 27 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5857

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

DecidedMay 7, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D. 788 (Claim of Richeal v. Eckert) 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 Richeal v. Eckert, 262 A.D. 788, 27 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an award, error being asserted in fixing the wage rate. Claimant had not worked the whole of the year preceding the accident. His earnings prior to the accident were determined under subdivision 2 of section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law to be thirty-one dollars and twenty-eight cents a week. This rate was based on the earnings of an employee engaged in a different type of trucking for a public utility corporation at a basic rate of eighty-one cents or eighty-six cents an hour, who earned $1,917.25 in the year prior to September 20, 1938 (the dare of' the accident). Claimant worked only for the employer during the previous year. He was employed 187 days and received $479.85 at the basic rate of fifty cents an hour. He did some work for a percentage of the amount received by the employer. Claimant’s foreman, who worked the entire year, received only twenty-eight dollars a week. The rate fixed is not in compliance with section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Award reversed on the law, with costs against the State Industrial Board, and matter remitted. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Schenck and Foster, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an award, error being asserted in fixing the wage rate. Claimant had not worked the whole of the year preceding the accident. His earnings prior to the accident were determined under subdivision 2 of section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law to be thirty-one dollars and twenty-eight cents a week. This rate was based on the earnings of an employee engaged in a different type of trucking for a public utility corporation at a basic rate of eighty-one cents or eighty-six cents an hour, who earned $1,917.25 in the year prior to September 20, 1938 (the dare of' the accident). Claimant worked only for the employer during the previous year. He was employed 187 days and received $479.85 at the basic rate of fifty cents an hour. He did some work for a percentage of the amount received by the employer. Claimant’s foreman, who worked the entire year, received only twenty-eight dollars a week. The rate fixed is not in compliance with section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Award reversed on the law, with costs against the State Industrial Board, and matter remitted. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Schenck and Foster, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 788, 27 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-richeal-v-eckert-nyappdiv-1941.