Matter of Bollard v. Engel
Opinion
We think the evidence warranted tfie finding that the employment was not interrupted while the deceased was returning from supper on the occasion in question, (Cf. Matter of Johnson v. Smith, 263 N. Y. 10; Matter of Goldman v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 276 N. Y. 582.) The employer’s first report of injury was not without probative force merely because it was not made upon personal knowledge (Gangi v. Fradus, 227 N. Y. 452, 456, 457).
The order should be affirmed, with costs.
Crane, Ch, J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubrs, Loeghran, Finch and Rjkpey, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
17 N.E.2d 130 (Matter of Bollard v. Engel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.