Claim of Robinson v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Robinson v. New York Telephone Co.

86 A.D.2d 916, 448 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15591

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 A.D.2d 916 (Claim of Robinson v. New York Telephone 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 Robinson v. New York Telephone Co., 86 A.D.2d 916, 448 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 14, 1981. The employer contends that the board erred in finding that claimant had not voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. However, in view of the undisputed testimony that claimant’s retirement was involuntary, that subsequently he searched for and obtained other employment and that he had a causally related disability, the board’s finding is clearly supported by substantial evidence (see Matter ofYamonaco v Union Carbide Corp., 42 AD2d 1014; Matter of Santry v Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 35 AD2d 1037). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Mahoney, P.J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 14, 1981. The employer contends that the board erred in finding that claimant had not voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. However, in view of the undisputed testimony that claimant’s retirement was involuntary, that subsequently he searched for and obtained other employment and that he had a causally related disability, the board’s finding is clearly supported by substantial evidence (see Matter ofYamonaco v Union Carbide Corp., 42 AD2d 1014; Matter of Santry v Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 35 AD2d 1037). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Mahoney, P.J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 916, 448 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-robinson-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack