Collier v. Brecher

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Collier v. Brecher

13 Misc. 2d 444, 180 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3104

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 17, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 Misc. 2d 444 (Collier v. Brecher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Collier v. Brecher, 13 Misc. 2d 444, 180 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board holding notice, accident and causal relation established ” embraced a finding that the plaintiff’s injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment, binding upon the plaintiff until vacated or modified by direct proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Doca v. Federal Stevedoring Co., 280 App. Div. 940, affd. 305 N. Y. 648; see, also, Matter of Doca v. Federal Stevedoring Co., 308 N. Y. 44, 49). In addition, the plaintiff’s own testimony showed, as a matter of law, that both he and the defendant were in the course of their employment when the accident occurred (Matter of Bennett v. Marine Works, 273 N. Y. 429; Matter of Marks v. Gray, 251 N. Y. 90). Accordingly, plaintiff’s sole remedy is under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts, with costs to defendant, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

The decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board holding notice, accident and causal relation established ” embraced a finding that the plaintiff’s injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment, binding upon the plaintiff until vacated or modified by direct proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Doca v. Federal Stevedoring Co., 280 App. Div. 940, affd. 305 N. Y. 648; see, also, Matter of Doca v. Federal Stevedoring Co., 308 N. Y. 44, 49). In addition, the plaintiff’s own testimony showed, as a matter of law, that both he and the defendant were in the course of their employment when the accident occurred (Matter of Bennett v. Marine Works, 273 N. Y. 429; Matter of Marks v. Gray, 251 N. Y. 90). Accordingly, plaintiff’s sole remedy is under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts, with costs to defendant, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Misc. 2d 444, 180 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collier-v-brecher-nyappterm-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack