Home/New York Court of Appeals/Matter of Adams v. . New York, Ontario and W. Railway Co.

Matter of Adams v. . New York, Ontario and W. Railway Co.

115 N.E. 1051, 220 N.Y. 579, 1917 N.Y. LEXIS 1030
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 30, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 115 N.E. 1051 (Matter of Adams v. . New York, Ontario and W. Railway Co.) 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
Matter of Adams v. . New York, Ontario and W. Railway Co., 115 N.E. 1051, 220 N.Y. 579, 1917 N.Y. LEXIS 1030 (N.Y. 1917).

Opinions

Cuddeback, J.

The order appealed from which required the deposit in the state fund by the employer and self-insurer of the money to meet the future payments of an award was properly reversed at the Appellate Division, for the reason that section 27 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 67), which requires such deposit, does not apply to an award made to a widow. It does not contemplate and fails to provide for weighing or determining the contingency of the *581 widow’s remarriage — which would bring about a cessation of the payments to her.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs against the state industrial commission.

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

Related

Claim of Szuba v. George Laub's Son's
271 A.D.2d 396 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1946)
Claim of Voelker v. Jos. Rosenberg's Sons
251 A.D. 50 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
Pacenza v. Booth & Flinn, Ltd.
250 A.D. 225 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
Claim of Brophy v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
241 A.D. 306 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1934)
Cogdill v. Aetna Life Insurance
2 P.2d 292 (Montana Supreme Court, 1931)
Bacon v. United Electric Railways Co.
150 A. 818 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1930)
Claim of Wagner v. Wilson & Co.
167 N.E. 174 (New York Court of Appeals, 1929)
Surace v. Danna
161 N.E. 315 (New York Court of Appeals, 1928)
Claim of Lauritzen v. Terry & Tench Co.
193 A.D. 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1920)
Claim of Sperduto v. New York City Interborough Railway Co.
186 A.D. 145 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
In re the Claim of Yonkers Railroad
186 A.D. 192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
Claim of Bailey v. Columbian Rope Co.
184 A.D. 718 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 N.E. 1051, 220 N.Y. 579, 1917 N.Y. LEXIS 1030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-adams-v-new-york-ontario-and-w-railway-co-ny-1917.