Claim of Tubis v. H. Weaderhorn, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Tubis v. H. Weaderhorn, Inc.

260 A.D. 823, 22 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4841

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 A.D. 823 (Claim of Tubis v. H. Weaderhorn, 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 Tubis v. H. Weaderhorn, Inc., 260 A.D. 823, 22 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

The question is whether there has been a settlement of a third-party action in violation of section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law which prevents the claimant from receiving an award for deficiency. The case was here before this court at an earlier date. (252 App. Div. 897.) The judgment indicates that the parties agreed as to liability of the defendants and thereupon the court assessed the damages. Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Hill P. J., Heffernan and Foster, JJ., concur; Bliss and Schenck, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Bliss, J., on the prior decision in this court and upon the authority of Matter of Kirby v. Bloomingdale Bros. (256 App. Div. 1016; affd., 281 N. Y. 856) and Matter of Daus v. Gunderman & Sons, Inc. (283 id. 459).

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

The question is whether there has been a settlement of a third-party action in violation of section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law which prevents the claimant from receiving an award for deficiency. The case was here before this court at an earlier date. (252 App. Div. 897.) The judgment indicates that the parties agreed as to liability of the defendants and thereupon the court assessed the damages. Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Hill P. J., Heffernan and Foster, JJ., concur; Bliss and Schenck, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Bliss, J., on the prior decision in this court and upon the authority of Matter of Kirby v. Bloomingdale Bros. (256 App. Div. 1016; affd., 281 N. Y. 856) and Matter of Daus v. Gunderman & Sons, Inc. (283 id. 459).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D. 823, 22 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-tubis-v-h-weaderhorn-inc-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack