Home/New York Court of Appeals/Matter of Kleid v. Carr Bros.

Matter of Kleid v. Carr Bros.

90 N.E.2d 185, 300 N.Y. 270, 1949 N.Y. LEXIS 914
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 29, 1949
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 90 N.E.2d 185 (Matter of Kleid v. Carr Bros.) 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 Kleid v. Carr Bros., 90 N.E.2d 185, 300 N.Y. 270, 1949 N.Y. LEXIS 914 (N.Y. 1949).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Since this unwitnessed accident took place during working hours in a place where Kleid’s work commonly took him, the section 21 presumption justified the board’s finding that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, even though Kleid’s presence at the exact spot was unexplained (Matter of Department of Taxation & Finance v. Cohen, 298 N. Y. 825; Matter of Welz v. Markel Service, 296 N. Y. 640; Matter of Mayer v. Faber Pencil Co., 274 App. Div. 1079, motion for leave to appeal denied 298 N. Y. 935; Matter of Boehm v. Sokol Hall Holding Corp., 274 App. Div. 954, motion for leave to appeal denied 298 N. Y. 931; Matter of Wolmetz v. Wall, 272 App. Div. 982, motion for leave to appeal denied 297 N. Y. 1042).

Furthermore, employer-appellant’s first report of injury, filed with the board, contained an admission that Kleid was working at his regular occupation when injured, which admission was competent evidence of that fact (Matter of Bollard v. Engel, 278 N. Y. 463).

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Middleton v. Coxsackie Correctional Facility
341 N.E.2d 527 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)
Claim of Guggenheim v. C. Hedke & Co.
32 A.D.2d 1017 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1969)
Claim of Laird v. Springer
31 A.D.2d 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1968)
Claim of Brasch v. Investors Funding Corp.
23 A.D.2d 918 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1965)
Claim of Vickers v. Bryant Park Building, Inc.
16 A.D.2d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1962)
Claim of Mengele v. Liebmann Breweries, Inc.
13 A.D.2d 195 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)
Claim of Ackerman v. Dairymen's League Cooperative Ass'n
10 A.D.2d 112 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Claim of Hoffman v. Grain Handling Co.
7 A.D.2d 675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
Claim of Moraes v. National Biscuit Co.
2 A.D.2d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)
Claim of Mietlinski v. Hickman
285 A.D. 306 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1954)
Claim of Doca v. Federal Stevedoring Co.
123 N.E.2d 632 (New York Court of Appeals, 1954)
Kumkumian v. City of New York
111 N.E.2d 865 (New York Court of Appeals, 1953)
Claim of Davis v. Newsweek Magazine
110 N.E.2d 406 (New York Court of Appeals, 1953)
Claim of McCormack v. National City Bank
99 N.E.2d 887 (New York Court of Appeals, 1951)
Meaney v. Keating
200 Misc. 308 (New York Supreme Court, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 N.E.2d 185, 300 N.Y. 270, 1949 N.Y. LEXIS 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-kleid-v-carr-bros-ny-1949.