Claim of Stern v. Electrol, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Stern v. Electrol, Inc.

18 A.D.2d 1117, 238 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4018

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

DecidedApril 4, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 18 A.D.2d 1117 (Claim of Stern v. Electrol, 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 Stern v. Electrol, Inc., 18 A.D.2d 1117, 238 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

It is conceded that July 14, 1953 was the last day upon which the claim for reimbursement could be timely “filed” (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 15, subd. 8, par. [f]) and appellants contend that the statute was complied with by mailing of the claim on that day; with the result that it was received by the board, and by the Fund as well, on July 15, 1953. The term “filed” as used in the section cited cannot properly be equated with “ mailed ” or “ served by mail ”. The distinction is substantial and material in legal meaning and effect and in common parlance as well. (See, e.g., Matter of Cheesman v. Cheesman, 236 N. Y. 47, 49, and Appellate Division decision, 203 App. Div. 533, 535-536, revd. on other grounds 236 N. Y. 47, supra; Albany Bldrs. Supply Co. v. Eastern Bridge & Structural Co., 235 N. Y. 432, 437; Sweeney v. City of New York, 225 N. Y. 271, 275.) Decision unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent Special Disability Fund. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ.

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

It is conceded that July 14, 1953 was the last day upon which the claim for reimbursement could be timely “filed” (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 15, subd. 8, par. [f]) and appellants contend that the statute was complied with by mailing of the claim on that day; with the result that it was received by the board, and by the Fund as well, on July 15, 1953. The term “filed” as used in the section cited cannot properly be equated with “ mailed ” or “ served by mail ”. The distinction is substantial and material in legal meaning and effect and in common parlance as well. (See, e.g., Matter of Cheesman v. Cheesman, 236 N. Y. 47, 49, and Appellate Division decision, 203 App. Div. 533, 535-536, revd. on other grounds 236 N. Y. 47, supra; Albany Bldrs. Supply Co. v. Eastern Bridge & Structural Co., 235 N. Y. 432, 437; Sweeney v. City of New York, 225 N. Y. 271, 275.) Decision unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent Special Disability Fund. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 1117, 238 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-stern-v-electrol-inc-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack