Matter of Bollard v. Engel
This text of 17 N.E.2d 130 (Matter of Bollard v. Engel) 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 N.E.2d 130, 278 N.Y. 463, 1938 N.Y. LEXIS 1327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-bollard-v-engel-ny-1938.