Matter of Bollard v. Engel, 17 N.E.2d 130 (N.Y. 1938). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Bollard v. Engel, 17 N.E.2d 130 (N.Y. 1938). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1964 · …the question basically is whether the employment was 'not interrupted' (matter of bollard v. engel, 278 n. y. 463, 466 ) and on that question the fact that an employee is an inside or outside worker is not always conclusive. ⚠ not in text
43 citation events across 9 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1940 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1940 1983 2026
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Claim of Frances Bollard, Respondent, Against Louis Engel, Jr., Appellant, Impleaded With Another. State Industrial Board, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 18, 1938.
17 N.E.2d 130
1938 N.Y. LEXIS 1327
James O. Moore and R.K. Humphrey for appellant. John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General ( Roy Wiedersum of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent. Noel S. Symons for claimant, respondent.
<italic>Per Curiam.</italic>.
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

We think the evidence warranted tfie finding that the employment was not interrupted while the deceased was returning from supper on the occasion in question, (Cf. Matter of Johnson v. Smith, 263 N. Y. 10; Matter of Goldman v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 276 N. Y. 582.) The employer’s first report of injury was not without probative force merely because it was not made upon personal knowledge (Gangi v. Fradus, 227 N. Y. 452, 456, 457).

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Crane, Ch, J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubrs, Loeghran, Finch and Rjkpey, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.