Claim of Snyder v. Grosby Press, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Snyder v. Grosby Press, Inc.

263 A.D. 913, 32 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7343

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D. 913 (Claim of Snyder v. Grosby Press, 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 Snyder v. Grosby Press, Inc., 263 A.D. 913, 32 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant appeals from a decision of the State Industrial Board which affirmed the report of a referee disallowing his claim for compensation. The decision of the Board is based solely on the ground that the accidental injuries sustained by claimant did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. Claimant was a salesman and an outside worker. He received his injuries in a restaurant where he frequently met customers, solicited and transacted business. It is quite evident from the record that his claim was denied because at the time he sustained his injuries he was having his lunch and had no prospective customer with him, although he claimed that he was attempting to solicit business from the proprietor of the restaurant. The decision does not indicate that claimant’s methods of doing business were fully considered, and is based upon such a narrow premise as to be erroneous as a matter of law. Decision reversed, with costs to claimant, and matter remitted to the State Industrial Board for further consideration. BUI, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Hefíernan and Foster, JJ., concur.

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

Claimant appeals from a decision of the State Industrial Board which affirmed the report of a referee disallowing his claim for compensation. The decision of the Board is based solely on the ground that the accidental injuries sustained by claimant did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. Claimant was a salesman and an outside worker. He received his injuries in a restaurant where he frequently met customers, solicited and transacted business. It is quite evident from the record that his claim was denied because at the time he sustained his injuries he was having his lunch and had no prospective customer with him, although he claimed that he was attempting to solicit business from the proprietor of the restaurant. The decision does not indicate that claimant’s methods of doing business were fully considered, and is based upon such a narrow premise as to be erroneous as a matter of law. Decision reversed, with costs to claimant, and matter remitted to the State Industrial Board for further consideration. BUI, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Hefíernan and Foster, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 913, 32 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-snyder-v-grosby-press-inc-nyappdiv-1942.