Claim of Rucker v. Nassau-Beekman Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Rucker v. Nassau-Beekman Realty Corp.

272 A.D.2d 982

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

DecidedSeptember 17, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 982 (Claim of Rucker v. Nassau-Beekman Realty Corp.) 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 Rucker v. Nassau-Beekman Realty Corp., 272 A.D.2d 982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by an employer and insurance carrier from a decision and award in favor of claimant made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Claimant, an elevator operator in his employer’s building at 132 Nassau Street, in New York City, sustained disabling injuries when he slipped and fell in Nassau Street while returning to his place of employment during a twenty minute “relief period” which had been regularly accorded to him in the arrangement of his work schedule. We cannot say that, when injured, claimant was so separated from his employment that his accident did not arise out of and during the. course thereof. (Matter of Bollard v. Engel, 254 App. Div. 162, affd. 278 N. Y. 463; Matter of Karl v. Fair Shoe Repair, Inc., 269 App. Div. 800. See also Matter of Younger v. Motor Cab Transportation Co., 260 N. Y. 396, 398.) Decision and award affirmed, with costs - to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All concur.

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

Appeal by an employer and insurance carrier from a decision and award in favor of claimant made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Claimant, an elevator operator in his employer’s building at 132 Nassau Street, in New York City, sustained disabling injuries when he slipped and fell in Nassau Street while returning to his place of employment during a twenty minute “relief period” which had been regularly accorded to him in the arrangement of his work schedule. We cannot say that, when injured, claimant was so separated from his employment that his accident did not arise out of and during the. course thereof. (Matter of Bollard v. Engel, 254 App. Div. 162, affd. 278 N. Y. 463; Matter of Karl v. Fair Shoe Repair, Inc., 269 App. Div. 800. See also Matter of Younger v. Motor Cab Transportation Co., 260 N. Y. 396, 398.) Decision and award affirmed, with costs - to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-rucker-v-nassau-beekman-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack