Matter of Hoffman v. New York Central R.R. Co.

49 N.E.2d 136, 290 N.Y. 277, 1943 N.Y. LEXIS 1112
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 15, 1943
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 49 N.E.2d 136 (Matter of Hoffman v. New York Central R.R. 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 Hoffman v. New York Central R.R. Co., 49 N.E.2d 136, 290 N.Y. 277, 1943 N.Y. LEXIS 1112 (N.Y. 1943).

Opinion

Conway, J.

Claimant was employed by the New York Central Railroad Company for about twenty years. On March 21,1940, he was a boiler maker helper and worked in Shop C of the West Albany shop of the railroad. He was on his way to work between Shop C and Shop D and was walking on a concrete path which the employees used on the employer’s premises. Claimant testified that there was ice on the walk and that he fell. A question of fact was presented as to whether or not claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of his employment so as to entitle him to compensation. It was conceded that his injury was sustained in the course of his employment. There is a presumption that the claim comes within the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law and the decision of the State Industrial Board is final as to all questions of fact. (Workmen’s Compensation Law, §§ 21, 20; Matter of Daus v. Gunderman *279 & Sons, Inc., 283 N. Y. 459, 466.) The frankness of the claimant in testifying that he did not know the canse of his fall, does not, without more, necessarily overcome the presumption that his claim comes within the statute. The question of fact was resolved by the Industrial Board in the claimant’s favor. The award should have been sustained. (Matter of Unger v. New York Sportwear Co., 268 N. Y. 651; Matter of Kefford v. Federal Reserve Bank, 246 App. Div. 660, motion for leave to appeal denied, 270 N. Y. 675.)

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the award of the State Industrial Board reinstated with costs in this.court and in the Appellate Division.

Lehman, Ch. J., Lohghran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis and Desmond, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Related

Claim of Van Horn v. Red Hook Central School
75 A.D.2d 699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Claim of Mitskevich v. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp.
27 A.D.2d 867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1967)
Claim of Bruni v. International Terminal Operating Co.
26 A.D.2d 887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
Claim of Behan v. County of Onondaga
26 A.D.2d 609 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
Claim of Hoffman v. Creed-moor State Hospital
22 A.D.2d 736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)
Claim of Marchand v. Sperry Gyroscope Co.
19 A.D.2d 687 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
Claim of Rapp v. Furniture Express, Inc.
16 A.D.2d 855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1962)
Claim of Kurash v. Franklin Stores Corp.
12 A.D.2d 368 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)
Claim of Schreckenberger v. Hall Baking Co.
11 A.D.2d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Claim of Moraes v. National Biscuit Co.
2 A.D.2d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)
Claim of Frye v. Glazebrook
285 A.D. 917 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1955)
Claim of Rice v. R. B. Hamilton Hardware, Inc.
284 A.D. 1074 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1954)
Doca v. Federal Stevedoring Co.
280 A.D. 940 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1952)
Claim of McCormack v. National City Bank
99 N.E.2d 887 (New York Court of Appeals, 1951)
Claim of Davis v. American Bank Note Co.
278 A.D. 620 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1951)
Woloshchuck's Case
88 N.E.2d 640 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
Matter of Wilson v. General Motors Corp.
84 N.E.2d 781 (New York Court of Appeals, 1949)
Goddu's Case
82 N.E.2d 232 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
Matter of Dennison v. Peckham Road Corp.
68 N.E.2d 440 (New York Court of Appeals, 1946)
Welz v. Markel Service, Inc.
270 A.D. 15 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 N.E.2d 136, 290 N.Y. 277, 1943 N.Y. LEXIS 1112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-hoffman-v-new-york-central-rr-co-ny-1943.