Claim of Unterberg v. New York State Department of Labor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Unterberg v. New York State Department of Labor

19 A.D.2d 668, 242 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3469

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

DecidedJune 27, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 668 (Claim of Unterberg v. New York State Department of Labor) 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 Unterberg v. New York State Department of Labor, 19 A.D.2d 668, 242 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which denied death benefits on the ground that the deceased employee did not sustain an accidental injury. Decedent was employed by the State Department of Labor as an examiner and, among other things, served summonses under the supervision of the Attorney-General. Prior to an incident which occurred in decedent’s office on December 16, 1957, he had been receiving treatment from a physician for “ anginal syndrome coronary insufficiency ”. The hoard has found: “ Substantial credible evidence indicates no extreme argument occurred on December 16, 1957 and that the brief discussion between the 'decedent, the eo-woi’ker and the person who sought an explanation for the summons served upon him * * * was not loud or excitable.” There are two versions in the record concerning the incident and one of them amply sustains the above-quoted determination .of the board, and of course the board could accept -that version and reject the other. There is medical testimony in the record that there was no causal relation between the alleged altercation and decedent’s subsequent heart attack and death. There is ample authority for the board’s decision (Matter of Gordon v. Temple Beth El of Great Neck, 18 A D 2d 855; Matter of Santacroce v. 40 W. 20th St., 9 A D 2d 985, affd. 10 N Y 2d 855; Matter of Cramer v. Barney’s Clothing Store, 15 A D 2d 329, affd. 13 N Y 2d 711). Decision affirmed, without costs. 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

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which denied death benefits on the ground that the deceased employee did not sustain an accidental injury. Decedent was employed by the State Department of Labor as an examiner and, among other things, served summonses under the supervision of the Attorney-General. Prior to an incident which occurred in decedent’s office on December 16, 1957, he had been receiving treatment from a physician for “ anginal syndrome coronary insufficiency ”. The hoard has found: “ Substantial credible evidence indicates no extreme argument occurred on December 16, 1957 and that the brief discussion between the 'decedent, the eo-woi’ker and the person who sought an explanation for the summons served upon him * * * was not loud or excitable.” There are two versions in the record concerning the incident and one of them amply sustains the above-quoted determination .of the board, and of course the board could accept -that version and reject the other. There is medical testimony in the record that there was no causal relation between the alleged altercation and decedent’s subsequent heart attack and death. There is ample authority for the board’s decision (Matter of Gordon v. Temple Beth El of Great Neck, 18 A D 2d 855; Matter of Santacroce v. 40 W. 20th St., 9 A D 2d 985, affd. 10 N Y 2d 855; Matter of Cramer v. Barney’s Clothing Store, 15 A D 2d 329, affd. 13 N Y 2d 711). Decision affirmed, without costs. Present- — -Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 668, 242 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-unterberg-v-new-york-state-department-of-labor-nyappdiv-1963.