Rodriguez v. Grocery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Grocery

46 A.D.2d 713, 360 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3771

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

DecidedOctober 31, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.2d 713 (Rodriguez v. Grocery) 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

Rodriguez v. Grocery, 46 A.D.2d 713, 360 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from a decision and amended decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed November 28, 1972 and November 16, 1973, respectively^ holding that claimant sustained a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The board found that claimant, a grocery store clerk, was wounded while handling a gun previously left in the store by a cus[714]*714tomer and that the accident arose ont of and in the course of his employment. While the record discloses discrepancies between claimant’s testimony and that of Patrolman Marino, they concern matters of detail which are readily reconcilable when it is considered that the description of the accident given to the officer was made through interposition of one who was not a professional interpreter and while claimant was in severe pain. It is not likely that claimant intentionally shot himself in the back of the leg. Furthermore, since the injury was accidental, a presumption follows that it arose out of the employment. (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 21.) The record contains no substantial evidence to the contrary. In view of the presumption and since there is substantial evidence in support of the board’s determination, its affirmance is mandated. Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Sweeney, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals from a decision and amended decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed November 28, 1972 and November 16, 1973, respectively^ holding that claimant sustained a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The board found that claimant, a grocery store clerk, was wounded while handling a gun previously left in the store by a cus[714]*714tomer and that the accident arose ont of and in the course of his employment. While the record discloses discrepancies between claimant’s testimony and that of Patrolman Marino, they concern matters of detail which are readily reconcilable when it is considered that the description of the accident given to the officer was made through interposition of one who was not a professional interpreter and while claimant was in severe pain. It is not likely that claimant intentionally shot himself in the back of the leg. Furthermore, since the injury was accidental, a presumption follows that it arose out of the employment. (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 21.) The record contains no substantial evidence to the contrary. In view of the presumption and since there is substantial evidence in support of the board’s determination, its affirmance is mandated. Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Sweeney, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 713, 360 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-grocery-nyappdiv-1974.