Claim of Waite v. E. W. Bliss Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Waite v. E. W. Bliss Co.

186 A.D. 398, 173 N.Y.S. 686, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5563

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 1919

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D. 398 (Claim of Waite v. E. W. Bliss 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 Waite v. E. W. Bliss Co., 186 A.D. 398, 173 N.Y.S. 686, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Lyon, J.:

The appeal is not properly before this court for hearing. The Commission made the award of date July 8, 1918, to Harold C. Waite, for forty-one weeks covering the period from August 28, 1916, to June 11, 1917, evidently erroneously stated in the findings as July 11, 1917, and continued the claim for further hearing, the Commission stating, “ it appearing that Harold C. Waite claimant herein died on or about August 9, 1917, said award is directed to be paid to the estate of Harold C. Waite, deceased.”

The law and practice of this court require that following the death of the plaintiff a substitution must be had of a representative of the estate before an appeal can be heard. It was recently held by the Court of Appeals in Matter of O’Esau v. Bliss Co. (224 N. Y. 701) that by section 23 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law appeals to the Appellate Division and to the Court of Appeals from determinations made by the Commission, save as in said section excepted, are subject to the law and practice applicable to appeals in civil actions. Furthermore, there is nothing in the case showing that Emily K. Waite was the widow. According to the record Harold C. Waite was not married.

The hearing of the appeal must be suspended in this court awaiting such action as the parties may see fit to take.

All concurred.

. Decision of appeal suspended in this court to await such action as the parties may see fit to take.

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

Lyon, J.:

The appeal is not properly before this court for hearing. The Commission made the award of date July 8, 1918, to Harold C. Waite, for forty-one weeks covering the period from August 28, 1916, to June 11, 1917, evidently erroneously stated in the findings as July 11, 1917, and continued the claim for further hearing, the Commission stating, “ it appearing that Harold C. Waite claimant herein died on or about August 9, 1917, said award is directed to be paid to the estate of Harold C. Waite, deceased.”

The law and practice of this court require that following the death of the plaintiff a substitution must be had of a representative of the estate before an appeal can be heard. It was recently held by the Court of Appeals in Matter of O’Esau v. Bliss Co. (224 N. Y. 701) that by section 23 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law appeals to the Appellate Division and to the Court of Appeals from determinations made by the Commission, save as in said section excepted, are subject to the law and practice applicable to appeals in civil actions. Furthermore, there is nothing in the case showing that Emily K. Waite was the widow. According to the record Harold C. Waite was not married.

The hearing of the appeal must be suspended in this court awaiting such action as the parties may see fit to take.

All concurred.

. Decision of appeal suspended in this court to await such action as the parties may see fit to take.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D. 398, 173 N.Y.S. 686, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-waite-v-e-w-bliss-co-nyappdiv-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack