Claim of Young v. Young

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Young v. Young

40 A.D.2d 739, 336 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3619

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 739 (Claim of Young v. Young) 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 Young v. Young, 40 A.D.2d 739, 336 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed July 14, 1971, which disallowed a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Claimant, wife of the owner of the Belle Mar Restaurant, was attacked by a sentry dog in her own home on July 1, 1969. She contends that she was an employee of her husband and that part of her duties were to take care of the dog at her home, it being her custom to take the dog to the restaurant at closing time, leave him there and pick him up in the morning. The board’s decision that there was no employer-employee relationship is supported by substantial evidence. There was ample evidence from which the board could properly resolve the question of credibility against the claimant. The remainder of claimant’s contentions have been examined and found to be without merit. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Simons and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed July 14, 1971, which disallowed a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Claimant, wife of the owner of the Belle Mar Restaurant, was attacked by a sentry dog in her own home on July 1, 1969. She contends that she was an employee of her husband and that part of her duties were to take care of the dog at her home, it being her custom to take the dog to the restaurant at closing time, leave him there and pick him up in the morning. The board’s decision that there was no employer-employee relationship is supported by substantial evidence. There was ample evidence from which the board could properly resolve the question of credibility against the claimant. The remainder of claimant’s contentions have been examined and found to be without merit. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Simons and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 739, 336 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-young-v-young-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack