award and dismissed claim in New York

1965Upon the authority of Tafft, we reversed an award and dismissed the claim of a drug salesman Avho Avas injured Avliile walking down the stairway in the apartment house in Avhieh he lived, as he “ started to go out * * * to call upon a prospective customer. ” (Matter of Bach v. Schieffelin & Co., 247 App. Div. 845 .) A contrary result Avas reached, however, in the later case of Matter of Eaton v. Webster Motors of Glens Falls ( 291 N. Y. 699 ), in Avhieh Avas affirmed (avíÜi three Judges dissenting on the authority of Tafft, supra) an aAvard in favor of the sales manager of an automobile sales

1965In Matter of Tafft v. Stafford ( 266 N. Y. 555 ), claimant seems clearly to have been an outside employee or, alternatively, to have been embarking on a special errand when, “ as she was leaving her residence, she slipped and fell on the top step of the stairs leading to the porch ” (p. 556); but the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s affirmance of an award and dismissed her claim in a memorandum which stated merely “ that there is no evidence that the claimant was injured while in the course of her employment ” (p. 556).

1965Upon the authority of Tafft, we reversed an award and dismissed the claim of a drug salesman Avho Avas injured Avliile walking down the stairway in the apartment house in Avhieh he lived, as he “ started to go out * * * to call upon a prospective customer. ” (Matter of Bach v. Schieffelin & Co., 247 App. Div. 845 .) A contrary result Avas reached, however, in the later case of Matter of Eaton v. Webster Motors of Glens Falls ( 291 N. Y. 699 ), in Avhieh Avas affirmed (avíÜi three Judges dissenting on the authority of Tafft, supra) an aAvard in favor of the sales manager of an automobile sales

1965Upon the authority of Tafft, we reversed an award and dismissed the claim of a drug salesman Avho Avas injured Avliile walking down the stairway in the apartment house in Avhieh he lived, as he “ started to go out * * * to call upon a prospective customer. ” (Matter of Bach v. Schieffelin & Co., 247 App. Div. 845 .) A contrary result Avas reached, however, in the later case of Matter of Eaton v. Webster Motors of Glens Falls ( 291 N. Y. 699 ), in Avhieh Avas affirmed (avíÜi three Judges dissenting on the authority of Tafft, supra) an aAvard in favor of the sales manager of an automobile sales

1965Go., 308 N. Y. 140 ; Matter of Kleid v. Carr Bros., 300 N. Y. 270 .) ” We reversed the award and dismissed the claim, however, on the ground that “the further statutory presumption that the deceased was not a suicide ” had been overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary (.p. 198); but the Court of Appeals, while inferentially approving our rejection of 'the carrier’s first ground of attack, held that “ the record presented an issue of fact as to suicide or accident ” and reversed our order and reinstated the 'award (11 N Y 2d 986, 988, supra).

1965Go., 308 N. Y. 140 ; Matter of Kleid v. Carr Bros., 300 N. Y. 270 .) ” We reversed the award and dismissed the claim, however, on the ground that “the further statutory presumption that the deceased was not a suicide ” had been overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary (.p. 198); but the Court of Appeals, while inferentially approving our rejection of 'the carrier’s first ground of attack, held that “ the record presented an issue of fact as to suicide or accident ” and reversed our order and reinstated the 'award (11 N Y 2d 986, 988, supra).

1965As appears from the memorandum opinion in the Appellate Division, the “ car Avas also used as a demonstrator and Avas stored in claimant’s garage” ( 265 App. Div. 1025 ).

1965Upon the authority of Tafft, we reversed an award and dismissed the claim of a drug salesman Avho Avas injured Avliile walking down the stairway in the apartment house in Avhieh he lived, as he “ started to go out * * * to call upon a prospective customer. ” (Matter of Bach v. Schieffelin & Co., 247 App. Div. 845 .) A contrary result Avas reached, however, in the later case of Matter of Eaton v. Webster Motors of Glens Falls ( 291 N. Y. 699 ), in Avhieh Avas affirmed (avíÜi three Judges dissenting on the authority of Tafft, supra) an aAvard in favor of the sales manager of an automobile sales

1965Upon the authority of Tafft, we reversed an award and dismissed the claim of a drug salesman Avho Avas injured Avliile walking down the stairway in the apartment house in Avhieh he lived, as he “ started to go out * * * to call upon a prospective customer. ” (Matter of Bach v. Schieffelin & Co., 247 App. Div. 845 .) A contrary result Avas reached, however, in the later case of Matter of Eaton v. Webster Motors of Glens Falls ( 291 N. Y. 699 ), in Avhieh Avas affirmed (avíÜi three Judges dissenting on the authority of Tafft, supra) an aAvard in favor of the sales manager of an automobile sales

1961In an early case the Industrial Commissioner held, as appears from the record on appeal, that the parties’ appearance at a hearing within the then statutory one-year period “ constitutes * * * a proper claim for compensation” but this court reversed the award and dismissed the claim “ because of the failure to file the claim for compensation within one year after the accident.” (Chefety v. Hearn & Son, 212 App. Div. 844 ; see, also, Matter of Simon v. American Express Co., 217 App. Div. 802 , affd. 244 N. Y. 560 , and record on appeal.) In the case before us, the appellant carrier was not pres

1960The settlement of the action, though not a formal adjudication of the issues, constitutes a bargain between the parties that the claim against the defendant should be satisfied by payment of the sum of $5,000.” ( 266 N. Y. 391 *, 395-396; emphasis supplied.) It is to be noted that the Russell case is in substance almost factually identical to the case at bar except that in the former it was the employer-employee relationship which was doubtful, while in the latter it is the occurrence of an industrial accident.

1959George v. State of New York , 283 App. Div. 245 , affd. 308 N.Y. 681 ).

1959George v. State of New York, 283 App. Div. 245 , affd. 308 N. Y. 681 ).

1959George v. State of New York , 283 App. Div. 245 , affd. 308 N.Y. 681 ).

1959George v. State of New York, 283 App. Div. 245 , affd. 308 N. Y. 681 ).

1957In view of the fact that an appeal was pending such action on the part of the board was at least irregular (Matter of Jones v. Schenectady Boys Club, 276 App. Div. 879 ; Matter of Di Mezzo v. Levor & Go., 281 App. Div. 719 ).

1951On appeal this court reversed the award and dismissed the claim ( 273 App. Div. 1035 ), pointing out that there was no evidence to support the finding that the disease was contracted within the twelve months’ period prescribed by section 40 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, but that on the contrary, it had been definitely established that the condition existed at least as early as November 16, 1943, while claimant was employed by another employer.

1937Corp. ( 267 N. Y. 28 ) reversed the award and dismissed the claim.

1917This court has given a more liberal construction to the Compensation Law, and held that “where * * * an employee is injured while performing an act *23 which is fairly incidental to the prosecution of a business and appropriate in carrying it forward and providing for its needs, he or his dependents are not to he barred from recovery because such act is not a step wholly embraced in the precise and characteristic process or operation which has been made the basis of the group in which employment is claimed.” (Matter of Larsen v. Paine Drug Co., 218 N. Y. 252, 256 .) The principle has been exte