Claim of Simpson v. Clover Express, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Simpson v. Clover Express, Inc.

22 A.D.2d 714, 253 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3092

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 714 (Claim of Simpson v. Clover Express, 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 Simpson v. Clover Express, Inc., 22 A.D.2d 714, 253 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3092 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The 'board’s findings upon the factual issues respecting New York employment and consequent jurisdiction, contested by the carrier, are supported by substantial evidence and cannot be disturbed. The issue sought to be injected by the employer, upon its separate appeal, without prior separate application for board review, was not raised before the board by the carrier’s application for review or otherwise and may not be considered here. (Work[715]*715men’s Compensation Law, § 23; Matter of Hedlund v. United Exposition Decorating Co., 15 A D 2d 973, 975, and cases there cited, mot. for lv. to app. den. 11 N Y 2d 646.)

Decision affirmed, with one hill of costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Gibson, P, J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The 'board’s findings upon the factual issues respecting New York employment and consequent jurisdiction, contested by the carrier, are supported by substantial evidence and cannot be disturbed. The issue sought to be injected by the employer, upon its separate appeal, without prior separate application for board review, was not raised before the board by the carrier’s application for review or otherwise and may not be considered here. (Work[715]*715men’s Compensation Law, § 23; Matter of Hedlund v. United Exposition Decorating Co., 15 A D 2d 973, 975, and cases there cited, mot. for lv. to app. den. 11 N Y 2d 646.)

Decision affirmed, with one hill of costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Gibson, P, J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 714, 253 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-simpson-v-clover-express-inc-nyappdiv-1964.