Claim of Santos v. Guemes

270 A.D. 1057, 63 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5300
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 26, 1946
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 270 A.D. 1057 (Claim of Santos v. Guemes) 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 Santos v. Guemes, 270 A.D. 1057, 63 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Opinion

— Claimant, a barber, was injured in the course of his employment while working in employer-appellant’s street level barbershop located at 2373 Eighth Avenue near 126th Street in the Harlem section of Hew York City at 9:00 p.m. in October, 1944, when he was shot in the cheek by a bullet fired into the shop by someone outside during the course of a street fight between rival gangs of teen-age ruffians. The shot was fired by an unknown one of a group of fighters at another of a rival group who had run through the open doorway of the barbershop for haven. There was evidence to support the finding that claimant’s injury arose out of as well as in the course of his employment. Where the place of employment is in fact so located and maintained that in the very nature of things it is peculiarly exposed to a given street risk, injury therefrom may be said to have arisen out of such employment, for the fact of employment is inseparable from dangers in which it abounds. (Matter of Greenberg v. Voit, 224 App. Div. 799, affd. 250 H. Y. 543.) The fact that claimant’s employment required him to work in a place maintained for public patronage, located adjacent to,and level with a public highway, so related the dangers which produced his injury to his employment that, within the holding in Matter of Christiansen v. Sill Reproduction Co. (262 App. Div. 379, affd. 287 H. Y. 690), it may be said that the injury arose out of the employment. Decision and award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All concur. [See 271 App. Div. 757.]

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

Related

Lathrop v. Tobin-Hamilton Shoe Manufacturing Co.
402 S.W.2d 16 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1966)
Claim of De Angelis v. Garfinkel Painting Co.
20 A.D.2d 162 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 A.D. 1057, 63 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-santos-v-guemes-nyappdiv-1946.