Morris v. Morris

• Decision Date: 22 November 1932
• Parties: Solomon MORRIS, Respondent, v. Sadye R. MORRIS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Harry Morris, Deceased, et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

260 N.Y. 650

184 N.E. 131

Solomon MORRIS, Respondent,

v.Sadye R. MORRIS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Harry Morris, Deceased, et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 22, 1932.

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (234 App. Div. 187, 254 N. Y. S. 429), entered January 20, 1932, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. Defendants are the widow and infant children of Harry Morris, the son of plaintiff, who came to his death through accidental injuries received on premises on which business was conducted by him and his father. After his death, a dispute arose between the widow and the father as to the son's interest in the business; the widow claiming that he was a partner and the father that he was simply an employee. This dispute was adjusted by a written contract providing for the payment of a sum of money by the father to the widow, for the benefit of herself and children, part payment to be made immediately and the balance in monthly installments. The contract contained the following provisions:

‘Third. It is further understood and agreed that this agreement shall in to manner affect the right of said Sadye R. Morris as Administratrix, to apply for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of the said Harry Morris, deceased.’

At the time the widow executed the contract, she also executed a release, which, among other things, released the father ‘from any and all compensation which may be due or become due under the Workmen's Compensation Law [Conso. Laws, c. 67] by reason of said death.’ Subsequently, an award against the father as an uninsured employed was obtained by the widow for herself and the dependent infants. The biweekly payments under the award were commuted into a lump sum, which the father paid. The father then brought this action asking that the agreement between him and the widow ‘be modified and changed so as to give credit for payments thereon * * * already paid by plaintiff on account of said agreement, and as well * * * the amount of the award paid by plaintiff to the Industrial Board of the State of New York, to the end that the terms of the agreement and release, and the understanding of the parties thereto may be fairly and equitably adjusted and carried out.’

The Appellate Division held that the amount of the award of...