Claim of Werner v. Slonimsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Werner v. Slonimsky

257 A.D. 1089, 14 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9210

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 1089 (Claim of Werner v. Slonimsky) 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 Werner v. Slonimsky, 257 A.D. 1089, 14 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant has appealed from the decision of the State Industrial Board denying Ms claim for compensation. It is the contention of claimant that on March 4,1937, while he was operating a pressing machine on Ms employer’s [1090]*1090premises and while closing the machine, that his foot slipped, that his body was shaken and that he felt pain in the chest. At the conclusion of the testimony the referee held that according to the overwhelming weight of the credible evidence claimant did not sustain an accidental injury within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The State Industrial Board on review affirmed that ruling. There is evidence to sustain the finding. Decision unanimously affirmed. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, HeSernan and Schenek, JJ.

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

Claimant has appealed from the decision of the State Industrial Board denying Ms claim for compensation. It is the contention of claimant that on March 4,1937, while he was operating a pressing machine on Ms employer’s [1090]*1090premises and while closing the machine, that his foot slipped, that his body was shaken and that he felt pain in the chest. At the conclusion of the testimony the referee held that according to the overwhelming weight of the credible evidence claimant did not sustain an accidental injury within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The State Industrial Board on review affirmed that ruling. There is evidence to sustain the finding. Decision unanimously affirmed. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, HeSernan and Schenek, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 1089, 14 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-werner-v-slonimsky-nyappdiv-1939.