Claim of Slocum v. Manhattan Storage & Warehouse Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Slocum v. Manhattan Storage & Warehouse Co.

261 A.D. 1025, 25 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8589

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D. 1025 (Claim of Slocum v. Manhattan Storage & Warehouse 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 Slocum v. Manhattan Storage & Warehouse Co., 261 A.D. 1025, 25 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8589 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by employer and self-insurer from a decision and award made by a referee and from the affirmance thereof by the State Industrial Board. Claimant was injured on March 31, 1936, while employed as a mover and helper in the employer’s warehousing business. The sole question involved in this appeal is the rate of weekly compensation awarded. The wage rate was properly computed in accordance with the statute. (Matter of Quichsall v. Hubbard & Floyd, Inc., 260 App. Div. 821.) The Board being the sole judges of the facts, this court may not disturb the finding. The award should be affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Schenck and Foster, JJ.

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

Appeal by employer and self-insurer from a decision and award made by a referee and from the affirmance thereof by the State Industrial Board. Claimant was injured on March 31, 1936, while employed as a mover and helper in the employer’s warehousing business. The sole question involved in this appeal is the rate of weekly compensation awarded. The wage rate was properly computed in accordance with the statute. (Matter of Quichsall v. Hubbard & Floyd, Inc., 260 App. Div. 821.) The Board being the sole judges of the facts, this court may not disturb the finding. The award should be affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Schenck and Foster, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 1025, 25 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-slocum-v-manhattan-storage-warehouse-co-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack