Mutarelli v. Jerry's 55th Street Restaurant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mutarelli v. Jerry's 55th Street Restaurant

64 A.D.2d 754, 406 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12593

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 13, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.2d 754 (Mutarelli v. Jerry's 55th Street Restaurant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mutarelli v. Jerry's 55th Street Restaurant, 64 A.D.2d 754, 406 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed July 18, 1975 and September 12, 1977. The board found "Based on all the evidence, the Board Panel finds in Case No. 07339575 that there was an advanced payment of compensation and that the Referee findings of accident, notice and causal relationship to a myocardial infarction were based on the evidence and were proper. In Case No. 07339576, the Board Panel finds that the carrier’s request for review is premature since the award was made subject to possible apportionment and the record will be further developed on this issue.” There is substantial evidence to sustain the decisions of the board. Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed July 18, 1975 and September 12, 1977. The board found "Based on all the evidence, the Board Panel finds in Case No. 07339575 that there was an advanced payment of compensation and that the Referee findings of accident, notice and causal relationship to a myocardial infarction were based on the evidence and were proper. In Case No. 07339576, the Board Panel finds that the carrier’s request for review is premature since the award was made subject to possible apportionment and the record will be further developed on this issue.” There is substantial evidence to sustain the decisions of the board. Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 754, 406 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mutarelli-v-jerrys-55th-street-restaurant-nyappdiv-1978.