Claim of Rothstein v. Supply Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Rothstein v. Supply Manufacturing Co.

277 A.D.2d 821

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

DecidedMay 10, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 821 (Claim of Rothstein v. Supply 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 Rothstein v. Supply Manufacturing Co., 277 A.D.2d 821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board disallowing a claim. Claimant, an inside worker, was employed as an office manager. She testified that at certain periods the work she did was so heavy that it was necessary for her to take portions of it home. In this she was corroborated by an officer of the employer. On a day when she testified she was bringing back to her office from home a leather case containing statements and other material on which she had been working for the employer at home, she slipped on ice in the street and was injured. The record gives no basis for holding as a matter of law that the board was required to accept as conclusively credible this testimony of an extension of employment beyond the office and beyond office hours. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board disallowing a claim. Claimant, an inside worker, was employed as an office manager. She testified that at certain periods the work she did was so heavy that it was necessary for her to take portions of it home. In this she was corroborated by an officer of the employer. On a day when she testified she was bringing back to her office from home a leather case containing statements and other material on which she had been working for the employer at home, she slipped on ice in the street and was injured. The record gives no basis for holding as a matter of law that the board was required to accept as conclusively credible this testimony of an extension of employment beyond the office and beyond office hours. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-rothstein-v-supply-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1950.