Smith v. Mallory Timers Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Smith v. Mallory Timers Co.

473 N.E.2d 733, 63 N.Y.2d 1002, 484 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4756

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 15, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 473 N.E.2d 733 (Smith v. Mallory Timers Co.) 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

Smith v. Mallory Timers Co., 473 N.E.2d 733, 63 N.Y.2d 1002, 484 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4756 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order reversed, with costs, and the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed July 26, 1982, reinstated. We disagree with the Appellate Division that there was “no basis in [the] record to support a determination that [claimant] would be entitled to reinstatement or back wages” after January 15, 1979. Once the employer admitted that it had rehired approximately 11 employees with seniority comparable to the claimant, it was not unreasonable, on this record, for the Board to infer that the claimant also would have been rehired on January 15, 1979 but for the discriminatory animus. Thus, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur in memorandum.

Order insofar as appealed from reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order reversed, with costs, and the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed July 26, 1982, reinstated. We disagree with the Appellate Division that there was “no basis in [the] record to support a determination that [claimant] would be entitled to reinstatement or back wages” after January 15, 1979. Once the employer admitted that it had rehired approximately 11 employees with seniority comparable to the claimant, it was not unreasonable, on this record, for the Board to infer that the claimant also would have been rehired on January 15, 1979 but for the discriminatory animus. Thus, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur in memorandum.

Order insofar as appealed from reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 N.E.2d 733, 63 N.Y.2d 1002, 484 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-mallory-timers-co-ny-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack