Claim of Weingarten v. Democrat & Chronicle

19 A.D.2d 566, 239 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3816
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 7, 1963
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 566 (Claim of Weingarten v. Democrat & Chronicle) 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 Weingarten v. Democrat & Chronicle, 19 A.D.2d 566, 239 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Opinion

The employer and its carrier appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board for a continuing causally related partial disability dated November 9, 1961 and from a decision of the board dated April 13, 1962. Claimant was employed on the first three days of each week as a relief district circulation manager, the duties of which required him to pick up newspapers at the employer’s publishing plant and to deliver them to newsboys, stores and individual subscribers along a charted route about six or seven miles in length in the traverse of which approximately 33 stops were made; in effecting the deliveries his own motor vehicle was used. For the services he was paid a daily wage of $5; for the use of his automobile he received an additional weekly allowance of $11 which the board included in the computation of his preaccidental average weekly earnings. Whether this was correct is the only issue presented upon appeal. Inevitably claimant incurred expenses in the operation of the vehicle used in connection with the hiring; the extent of their recoupment may not be regarded properly as wages within the contemplation of the statute. (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 2, subd. 9; Mailer of Le Voff v. Gompers é Blau, 278 App. Div. 878.) The residual financial advantage, if any, which he received from the employer by reason of the allowance the record does not disclose. Decisions and award reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Board for further development of the record, the recomputation of claimant’s average weekly wage and an appropriate award. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mason v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
562 A.2d 644 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1989)
Gonzales v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co.
728 P.2d 1369 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1986)
Moorehead v. Industrial Commission
495 P.2d 866 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 A.D.2d 566, 239 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-weingarten-v-democrat-chronicle-nyappdiv-1963.