Mahoney v. City of Paterson

• Decision Date: 17 July 1937
• Docket Number: No. 215.,215.
• Citation: 193 A. 544
• Parties: MAHONEY v. CITY OF PATERSON.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

193 A. 544

MAHONEY

v. CITY OF PATERSON.

No. 215.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

July 17, 1937.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mary A. Mahoney, claimant for the death of her husband, opposed by the City of Paterson, employer. To review an order made in the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, dismissing the claimant's petition for compensation, and the further order refusing to set aside the order of dismissal, the claimant seeks a writ of certiorari.

Writ denied.

Argued May term, 1937, before BODINE, HEHER, and PERSKIE, JJ.

Isadore Rabinowitz and Nathan Rabinowitz, both of Paterson, for prosecutor. Salvatore D. Viviano and Charles F. Lynch, both of Paterson, for respondent.

PERSKIE, Justice.

In this workmen's compensation case, prosecutor seeks a writ of certiorari to review the order made in the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, under date of April 6, 1937, dismissing her petition for compensation, and the further order, in this cause, made in the bureau, under date of February 1, 1937, refusing to set aside its order of dismissal.

On January 17, 1936, prosecutor filed a petition seeking compensation for the death of her husband, allegedly resulting, but denied by the city, from injuries suffered as the result of an automobile accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as overseer of the poor of the City of Paterson, N. J. The accident occurred on June 12, 1932, and the deceased died on June 18, 1932. Without detailing the facts set out in the petition and answers thereto and all the legal claims made by the respective parties, suffice it to say that the city denied liability and moved to dismiss the petition on the ground, inter alia, that it was not filed within two years after the day on which the accident occurred. Chapter 280, § 1, P.L.1931, p. 708 (N.J.St.Annual 1931, §** 236—46). Prosecutor's position below was, and it remains unchanged, that since the city made no report of this accident as required by the labor recording act, paragraph 6 of chapter 187, P.L.1924, pp. 401, 403 (Comp.St.Supp.1924, §**236—99), it could not avail itself of the statutory period of limitation. The deputy commissioner dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. No appeal was taken from that order. Thereafter, on January 26, 1937, petitioner gave notice of an application to the deputy commissioner to set aside the order of dismissal, to take proofs to show that the city had not reported the accident, and that upon such proofs being shown the city should be deprived of the defense interposed by it. For the city, it was admitted that no report had been made of the accident. The basis for prosecutor's application was that paragraph 6 of chapter 278, P.L.1931 ...