Claim of Wanamaker v. Selfridge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Wanamaker v. Selfridge

255 A.D. 892, 7 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5776

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 892 (Claim of Wanamaker v. Selfridge) 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 Wanamaker v. Selfridge, 255 A.D. 892, 7 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal by an insurance carrier from an award in claimant’s favor. The sole question concerns the issue of policy coverage. The record is very unsatisfactory and unintelligible and the court cannot pass upon the questions presented, particularly on the question as to whether or not the carrier is estopped to raise the question argued. The determination of the [State] Industrial Board is modified by reversing the award as against the carrier and remitting the matter to the State Industrial Board to consider any further testimony that may be offered. Hill, P. J., Rhodes, [893]*893Bliss and Heffeman, JJ., concur; Crapser, J., dissents, and votes to affirm the award appealed from.

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

This is an appeal by an insurance carrier from an award in claimant’s favor. The sole question concerns the issue of policy coverage. The record is very unsatisfactory and unintelligible and the court cannot pass upon the questions presented, particularly on the question as to whether or not the carrier is estopped to raise the question argued. The determination of the [State] Industrial Board is modified by reversing the award as against the carrier and remitting the matter to the State Industrial Board to consider any further testimony that may be offered. Hill, P. J., Rhodes, [893]*893Bliss and Heffeman, JJ., concur; Crapser, J., dissents, and votes to affirm the award appealed from.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 892, 7 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-wanamaker-v-selfridge-nyappdiv-1938.