Claim of Rosenberg v. Lenz & Riecker, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Rosenberg v. Lenz & Riecker, Inc.

263 A.D. 1035, 33 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7971

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D. 1035 (Claim of Rosenberg v. Lenz & Riecker, 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 Rosenberg v. Lenz & Riecker, Inc., 263 A.D. 1035, 33 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7971 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the State Industrial Board, dated March 25,1941, affirming its previous decision of December 4, 1940, affirming a referee’s decision disallowing the claim on the ground that there was no proof that claimant sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Claimant, a compositor and substitute stoneman employed by a printing establishment, claimed that while lifting a form he sustained a lower back strain. He made no complaint at the time and continued to work, and there wag proof by hig fellow workmen that he had done no [1036]*1036lifting of forms on the day in question. The record presents only a question of fact which has been resolved against the claimant. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Schenek and Foster, JJ.

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

Appeal from a decision of the State Industrial Board, dated March 25,1941, affirming its previous decision of December 4, 1940, affirming a referee’s decision disallowing the claim on the ground that there was no proof that claimant sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Claimant, a compositor and substitute stoneman employed by a printing establishment, claimed that while lifting a form he sustained a lower back strain. He made no complaint at the time and continued to work, and there wag proof by hig fellow workmen that he had done no [1036]*1036lifting of forms on the day in question. The record presents only a question of fact which has been resolved against the claimant. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Schenek and Foster, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 1035, 33 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-rosenberg-v-lenz-riecker-inc-nyappdiv-1942.