Claim of Smith v. Surf Apartments

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Smith v. Surf Apartments

227 A.D. 832

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 227 A.D. 832 (Claim of Smith v. Surf Apartments) 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 Smith v. Surf Apartments, 227 A.D. 832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Award modified so as to provide compensation for a period of two and five-sixths weeks at the rate of twenty dollars per week, ending July 28, 1927, on the ground that for the first seven weeks full wages were paid by the employer, on the authority of Matter of Sullivan v. Seely Son, Inc. (226 App. Div. 629); Bell v. Fraser (210 id. 560, 563); Matter of Rasmussen v. Park G. & M. Shop, Inc. (223 id. 591); and as so modified affirmed. Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman, Whitmyer and Hill, JJ., concur; Davis, J., dissents and votes for reversal on the ground that the amount of wages paid voluntarily by the employer amounts to more than the compensation during the period of disability covered by the award; and it is inequitable to permit the claimant to profit by receiving both wages and compensation. (Matter of Fredenburg v. Empire U. Railways, Inc., 168 App. Div. 618, 623; Matter of Sullivan v. Seely Son, Inc., 226 id. 629.)

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

Award modified so as to provide compensation for a period of two and five-sixths weeks at the rate of twenty dollars per week, ending July 28, 1927, on the ground that for the first seven weeks full wages were paid by the employer, on the authority of Matter of Sullivan v. Seely Son, Inc. (226 App. Div. 629); Bell v. Fraser (210 id. 560, 563); Matter of Rasmussen v. Park G. & M. Shop, Inc. (223 id. 591); and as so modified affirmed. Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman, Whitmyer and Hill, JJ., concur; Davis, J., dissents and votes for reversal on the ground that the amount of wages paid voluntarily by the employer amounts to more than the compensation during the period of disability covered by the award; and it is inequitable to permit the claimant to profit by receiving both wages and compensation. (Matter of Fredenburg v. Empire U. Railways, Inc., 168 App. Div. 618, 623; Matter of Sullivan v. Seely Son, Inc., 226 id. 629.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D. 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-smith-v-surf-apartments-nyappdiv-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack