Claim of Rodriguez v. Vogue Metalcraft, Inc.

96 A.D.2d 619, 464 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19167
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 7, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 96 A.D.2d 619 (Claim of Rodriguez v. Vogue Metalcraft, Inc.) 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 Rodriguez v. Vogue Metalcraft, Inc., 96 A.D.2d 619, 464 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19167 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, [620]*620filed October 14, 1982, which awarded death benefits to the deceased employee’s parents. Claimants are the parents of decedent who died as a result of an explosion at the factory where she worked. At the time of death the household consisted of nine persons, including decedent and her parents. A claim for death benefits was filed and, while the employer and carrier conceded compensability, they contested the parents’ claim of dependency. The board found that the parents were partially dependent on decedent at the time of her accident and death. This appeal ensued. Claimant father testified that he earned $225 a week and he took home about $180 or $190 a week and that decedent earned $137.84; that decedent contributed $50 a week to help pay household expenses; and that while his daughter-in-law was the only other member of the household regularly employed, he did not know how much she contributed to pay household expenses. There was additional proof indicating that the weekly expenses were $316.52. Questions of dependency and contributions are questions of fact for the board to determine and we should not disturb the determination unless there is no substantial evidence to support it (Matter of Holloway v Camp Hatikvah, 14 AD2d 638). Considering the record in its entirety, we are of the view that the decision of the board is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed (see Matter of Germain v Times Sq. Stores, 92 AD2d 657). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Main, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Claim of Tyrell v. Bouyea Baking Co.
194 A.D.2d 832 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Claim of Giglia v. Berger Industries
127 A.D.2d 959 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Claim of Torres v. Laurel Hill Nursery
98 A.D.2d 904 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Claim of Olmedo v. Mayor's Summer Youth Program
98 A.D.2d 878 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 A.D.2d 619, 464 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-rodriguez-v-vogue-metalcraft-inc-nyappdiv-1983.