Telaro v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Telaro v. Eastman Kodak Co.

77 A.D.2d 720, 430 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12464

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

DecidedJuly 17, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.2d 720 (Telaro v. Eastman Kodak Co.) 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

Telaro v. Eastman Kodak Co., 77 A.D.2d 720, 430 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, .filed March 13, 1979, which affirmed a Workers’ [721]*721Compensation Law Judge’s decision filed March 31, 1978, disallowing the claim finding that claimant did not sustain an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and that notice was untimely. The majority of the board found "Based on the evidence in the record and testimony, no accident arising out of and in the course of employment.” There is substantial evidence to sustain the determination of the board majority. The board’s resolution of questions of credibility and the weight to be given the testimony may not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Young v Henry M. Young, Inc., 56 AD2d 941; Matter of Sugnet v Hanna Furnace Corp., 33 AD2d 1064). Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, .filed March 13, 1979, which affirmed a Workers’ [721]*721Compensation Law Judge’s decision filed March 31, 1978, disallowing the claim finding that claimant did not sustain an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and that notice was untimely. The majority of the board found "Based on the evidence in the record and testimony, no accident arising out of and in the course of employment.” There is substantial evidence to sustain the determination of the board majority. The board’s resolution of questions of credibility and the weight to be given the testimony may not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Young v Henry M. Young, Inc., 56 AD2d 941; Matter of Sugnet v Hanna Furnace Corp., 33 AD2d 1064). Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.2d 720, 430 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/telaro-v-eastman-kodak-co-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack