In re the Claim of Slavin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Slavin

18 A.D.2d 726, 234 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6575

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 726 (In re the Claim of Slavin) 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

In re the Claim of Slavin, 18 A.D.2d 726, 234 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6575 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

the prior appeal (6 A D 2d 956), it was shown that the employer, otherwise exempt, became liable for contributions by agreement with claimant’s union; and inasmuch as the record suggested the possibility that both claimant and the union knew that contributions were being made only upon that portion of the weekly payment treated as salary for income tax purposes, we remitted to permit development of the record with respect to such knowledge and to consider the propriety of imposing estoppel, should knowledge be shown. Upon remittal, however, it was not demonstrated that either claimant or the union had any such knowledge. Consequently the previous decision of the board, filed February 28, 1957, was correct. Decision reversed and matter remitted to the board for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith, without costs. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur; Herlihy, J., concurs in the result.

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

the prior appeal (6 A D 2d 956), it was shown that the employer, otherwise exempt, became liable for contributions by agreement with claimant’s union; and inasmuch as the record suggested the possibility that both claimant and the union knew that contributions were being made only upon that portion of the weekly payment treated as salary for income tax purposes, we remitted to permit development of the record with respect to such knowledge and to consider the propriety of imposing estoppel, should knowledge be shown. Upon remittal, however, it was not demonstrated that either claimant or the union had any such knowledge. Consequently the previous decision of the board, filed February 28, 1957, was correct. Decision reversed and matter remitted to the board for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith, without costs. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur; Herlihy, J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 726, 234 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-slavin-nyappdiv-1962.