Claim of Rushforth v. Art Landscaping Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Rushforth v. Art Landscaping Co.

37 A.D.2d 885, 325 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3172

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 885 (Claim of Rushforth v. Art Landscaping 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 Rushforth v. Art Landscaping Co., 37 A.D.2d 885, 325 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed November 24,1970. On December 12, 1966, Arthur Rushforth, the president of the employer, Art Landscaping Co., Inc., was fatally injured when a truck in which he was hauling wine, collided with a train in Maspeth, New York. The issues involved are whether decedent was an employee of Art Landscaping Co., Inc., at the time of the accident and whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The board found “that the decedent was employed by Art Landscaping Co., Inc., and that an employer-employee relationship existed between the decedent and Art Landscaping Co., at the time of the accident on December 12, 1966 ”, and that the “accident on December 12, 1966 arose out of and in the course of employment and resulted in his death”. The question as to whether the relationship between the parties was one of employer and employee has been held to constitute “ a finding of fact not subject to reversal as a matter of law ” (Matter of Denman v. Many & Zanetti, 8 A D 2d 576, affd. 8 N Y 2d 799), when there is substantial evidence to support the finding. There being sub- = stantial evidence in the record here to support the determination of the board, its determination should be affirmed. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed November 24,1970. On December 12, 1966, Arthur Rushforth, the president of the employer, Art Landscaping Co., Inc., was fatally injured when a truck in which he was hauling wine, collided with a train in Maspeth, New York. The issues involved are whether decedent was an employee of Art Landscaping Co., Inc., at the time of the accident and whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The board found “that the decedent was employed by Art Landscaping Co., Inc., and that an employer-employee relationship existed between the decedent and Art Landscaping Co., at the time of the accident on December 12, 1966 ”, and that the “accident on December 12, 1966 arose out of and in the course of employment and resulted in his death”. The question as to whether the relationship between the parties was one of employer and employee has been held to constitute “ a finding of fact not subject to reversal as a matter of law ” (Matter of Denman v. Many & Zanetti, 8 A D 2d 576, affd. 8 N Y 2d 799), when there is substantial evidence to support the finding. There being sub- = stantial evidence in the record here to support the determination of the board, its determination should be affirmed. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 885, 325 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-rushforth-v-art-landscaping-co-nyappdiv-1971.