Quackenbush v. H. M. Quackenbush, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quackenbush v. H. M. Quackenbush, Inc.

212 A.D.2d 930, 623 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1588

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 930 (Quackenbush v. H. M. Quackenbush, Inc.) 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

Quackenbush v. H. M. Quackenbush, Inc., 212 A.D.2d 930, 623 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed September 23,1993, which ruled that claimant’s decedent did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment.

The Board found that there was insufficient evidence in the record to establish that decedent was involved in a dual purpose trip, that is one involving both personal and business matters, at the time of his accident. It therefore ruled that the accident did not arise out of and was not in the course of decedent’s employment. Insofar as there is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s decision, it must be upheld.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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

—Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed September 23,1993, which ruled that claimant’s decedent did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment.

The Board found that there was insufficient evidence in the record to establish that decedent was involved in a dual purpose trip, that is one involving both personal and business matters, at the time of his accident. It therefore ruled that the accident did not arise out of and was not in the course of decedent’s employment. Insofar as there is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s decision, it must be upheld.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 930, 623 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quackenbush-v-h-m-quackenbush-inc-nyappdiv-1995.