Matter of Leonescu v. Star Liquor Dealers, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Leonescu v. Star Liquor Dealers, Inc.

233 N.E.2d 853, 20 N.Y.2d 956, 286 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1072

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 6, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 N.E.2d 853 (Matter of Leonescu v. Star Liquor Dealers, Inc.) 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 Leonescu v. Star Liquor Dealers, Inc., 233 N.E.2d 853, 20 N.Y.2d 956, 286 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1072 (N.Y. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon reargument: Order affirmed, with costs, in the following memorandum: Appellants have conceded that the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (§ 123) would not be applicable here if the board’s action in rescinding its prior order of closure was proper. We accept the appellants’ concession for the purpose of deciding this case (see Cohen and. Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals [Rev. ed., 1952], p. 629). Since we believe that the Appellate Division correctly held that the Workmen’s Compensation Board could reopen nunc pro tune a case that was improperly closed, we affirm the order from which the appeal is taken.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating and Breitel. Judge Van Voorhis dissents and votes to reverse and remit the case to the Workmen’s Compensation Board in accordance with the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division.

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

Upon reargument: Order affirmed, with costs, in the following memorandum: Appellants have conceded that the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (§ 123) would not be applicable here if the board’s action in rescinding its prior order of closure was proper. We accept the appellants’ concession for the purpose of deciding this case (see Cohen and. Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals [Rev. ed., 1952], p. 629). Since we believe that the Appellate Division correctly held that the Workmen’s Compensation Board could reopen nunc pro tune a case that was improperly closed, we affirm the order from which the appeal is taken.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating and Breitel. Judge Van Voorhis dissents and votes to reverse and remit the case to the Workmen’s Compensation Board in accordance with the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 N.E.2d 853, 20 N.Y.2d 956, 286 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-leonescu-v-star-liquor-dealers-inc-ny-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack