Claim of Thomas v. Cooley Contracting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Thomas v. Cooley Contracting Co.

21 A.D.2d 929, 250 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3365

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 929 (Claim of Thomas v. Cooley Contracting 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 Thomas v. Cooley Contracting Co., 21 A.D.2d 929, 250 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Gibson, P. J.

Although the board seems to have been correct in relieving respondent city from contribution during the periods when reduced earnings exceeded the wage rate at the time of the injury in the city’s employ (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 15, subd. 6, par. [d]; Matter of Crawley v. Failla, 6 NY 2d 57), that issue is not before us, not having been raised in the application for review by the board (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 23; Matter of Hedlund v. United Exposition Decorating Co., 15 A D 2d 973, 975, mot. for lv. to app. den, 11 N Y 2d 646). In such application, appellants urged error only in the Referee’s finding of the $80.56 wage rate. That rate, if not, in fact, conceded, is not questioned in appellants’ brief, which advances no reason to impeach it. The additional purported appeal from a Referee’s decision must, of course, be dismissed. Decision affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents filing briefs. Purported appeal by notice of appeal dated May 2, 1963 dismissed, without costs. Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Gibson, P. J.

Although the board seems to have been correct in relieving respondent city from contribution during the periods when reduced earnings exceeded the wage rate at the time of the injury in the city’s employ (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 15, subd. 6, par. [d]; Matter of Crawley v. Failla, 6 NY 2d 57), that issue is not before us, not having been raised in the application for review by the board (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 23; Matter of Hedlund v. United Exposition Decorating Co., 15 A D 2d 973, 975, mot. for lv. to app. den, 11 N Y 2d 646). In such application, appellants urged error only in the Referee’s finding of the $80.56 wage rate. That rate, if not, in fact, conceded, is not questioned in appellants’ brief, which advances no reason to impeach it. The additional purported appeal from a Referee’s decision must, of course, be dismissed. Decision affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents filing briefs. Purported appeal by notice of appeal dated May 2, 1963 dismissed, without costs. Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 929, 250 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-thomas-v-cooley-contracting-co-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack