Claim of Wall v. R. H. Macy & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Wall v. R. H. Macy & Co.

248 A.D. 652

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

DecidedMay 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 652 (Claim of Wall v. R. H. Macy & 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 Wall v. R. H. Macy & Co., 248 A.D. 652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an award in favor of claimant. Deceased employee was a chief detective for the employer, and while driving an automobile south on Bronxdale and Pierce avenues, borough of Bronx, in the course of his employment, and shortly after passing around a sharp curve in the road, the automobile mounted the west curb and struck an electric light pole standing between the curb and the sidewalk, causing injuries from which he died in a hospital five hours later. The appellants claim that the accident was due solely to the intoxication of the deceased. The Board has found upon sufficient evidence that the injuries were not due solely to intoxication. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Bliss and HeSernan, JJ.

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

Appeal from an award in favor of claimant. Deceased employee was a chief detective for the employer, and while driving an automobile south on Bronxdale and Pierce avenues, borough of Bronx, in the course of his employment, and shortly after passing around a sharp curve in the road, the automobile mounted the west curb and struck an electric light pole standing between the curb and the sidewalk, causing injuries from which he died in a hospital five hours later. The appellants claim that the accident was due solely to the intoxication of the deceased. The Board has found upon sufficient evidence that the injuries were not due solely to intoxication. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Bliss and HeSernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-wall-v-r-h-macy-co-nyappdiv-1936.