Hamilton v. Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100

New York Court of Appeals

Hamilton v. Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100

209 N.E.2d 550, 16 N.Y.2d 696, 261 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1292

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 10, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 209 N.E.2d 550 (Hamilton v. Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hamilton v. Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100, 209 N.E.2d 550, 16 N.Y.2d 696, 261 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1292 (N.Y. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with costs to respondent Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Burke and Bergan. Judges Van Voorhis and Scileppi dissent in the following memorandum: An employee cannot obtain workmen’s *698 compensation if he is injured ip the course of doing a thing forbidden by his employer (Matter of Hyatt v. United States Rubber Reclaiming Co., 256 N. Y. 571, affg. 230 App. Div. 743; Matter of Boggan v. Abby Finishing Co., 11 A D 2d 591). There is no dispute that this was a wildcat strike, as conclusively determined by the executive board of the union. That was a sufficient basis, under the union’s constitution and by-laws, on which to depose him as vice-president of this local. The circumstance that it has been found that he had a mild myocardial infarction as a result of the hearing necessitated by his deliberate violation of the orders of his employer cannot, in our judgment, give him the right to claim that this disability arose out of and in the course of his employment. The hearing was necessitated by his disobedience of the command of his employer, and would not have occurred except therefor. The order appealed from should be reversed and the claim dismissed.

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

Order affirmed, with costs to respondent Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Burke and Bergan. Judges Van Voorhis and Scileppi dissent in the following memorandum: An employee cannot obtain workmen’s *698 compensation if he is injured ip the course of doing a thing forbidden by his employer (Matter of Hyatt v. United States Rubber Reclaiming Co., 256 N. Y. 571, affg. 230 App. Div. 743; Matter of Boggan v. Abby Finishing Co., 11 A D 2d 591). There is no dispute that this was a wildcat strike, as conclusively determined by the executive board of the union. That was a sufficient basis, under the union’s constitution and by-laws, on which to depose him as vice-president of this local. The circumstance that it has been found that he had a mild myocardial infarction as a result of the hearing necessitated by his deliberate violation of the orders of his employer cannot, in our judgment, give him the right to claim that this disability arose out of and in the course of his employment. The hearing was necessitated by his disobedience of the command of his employer, and would not have occurred except therefor. The order appealed from should be reversed and the claim dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 N.E.2d 550, 16 N.Y.2d 696, 261 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-transport-workers-union-of-greater-new-york-local-100-ny-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack