Myslborski v. Greenport Fire Dist., Volunteer Firemen's Co.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1971 |
| Parties | Claim of Henry MYSLBORSKI, Respondent, v. GREENPORT FIRE DISTRICT, VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S COMPANY et al., Appellants. Workmen's Compensation Board, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William J. Clark, Mattituck, for respondent Henry Myslborski.
Herbert Lasky, New York City (Louis Busell, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. , for respondent Workmen's Compensation Bd.
Before HERLIHY, P.J., and REYNOLDS, GREENBLOTT, SWEENEY and SIMONS, JJ.
Appeal from decisions of the Workmen's Compensation Board, filed February 10, 1971 and April 30, 1971.
On July 12, 1964 claimant, together with other members of his volunteer fire department, attender a fund-raising parade on Shelter Island. He contends that he was requested to attend by written notice from his Chief. Following the parade, he attended a block party held in conjunction with the parade and then went to an American Legion Hall across the street from the party. Three hours later, when on his way home, at about 11:30 P.M., claimant sustained a head injury when he fell from a Southold Fire Department truck. The board, finding that 'claimant was in necessary travel directly connected with the parade' when he fell from the fire truck, held 'that claimant was injured in the line of firemanic duties'.
The Volunteer Firemen's Benefit Law includes among the duties and activities for which benefits shall be paid, 'pursuant to orders or authorization, attending or participating in any * * * parade * * * in which (one's) fire department, fire company, or any unit thereof, is engaged, including necessary travel directly connected therewith'. (Volunteer Firemen's Benefit Law, § 5, subd. 1, par. e.) Appellants contend that respondent was neither ordered nor authorized to attend the parade. However, the notice from the department Chief was certainly sufficient for the board to find that respondent's attendance at the parade was pursuant to authorization.
It is next contended that there was a deviation from employment sufficient to remove respondent from his employment and, therefore, respondent was not injured while engaged in 'necessary travel directly connected' with the parade. The question of whether a claimant has deviated from his employment sufficiently to result in a separation from firemanic duties...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maines v. Cronomer Valley Fire Dept., Inc.
...940, 258 N.E.2d 221; Doyle v. Jennings, 26 N.Y.2d 957, 310 N.Y.S.2d 512, 258 N.E.2d 924; Matter of Myslborski v. Greenport Fire Dist., Volunteer Firemen's Co., 38 A.D.2d 646, 327 N.Y.S.2d 203). There is nothing in the instant record to suggest that the board was not wholly justified in find......
-
Lessard v. Mattituck Fire Dept.
...duties (see, Matter of Stewart v. Town of Chili, 146 A.D.2d 933, 536 N.Y.S.2d 970; Matter of Myslborski v. Greenport Fire Dist., Volunteer Firemen's Co., 38 A.D.2d 646, 327 N.Y.S.2d 203; Matter of Day v. Smyrna Fire Dept., 27 A.D.2d 341, 279 N.Y.S.2d 396) and, therefore, are readily disting......
-
Dineen v. Islip Fire Dist.
...prior Board decisions extending statutory coverage to parade-related injuries (see, e.g., Matter of Myslborski v. Greenport Fire Dist., Volunteer Firemen's Co., 38 A.D.2d 646, 327 N.Y.S.2d 203; Matter of Sullivan v. Delphi Falls Fire Co., 29 A.D.2d 584, 285 N.Y.S.2d 682). We also reject the......
-
Higgins v. Ronkonkoma Fire District, Volunteer Fire Co.
...Maines v. Cronomer Val. Fire Dept., 50 N.Y.2d 535, 543, 429 N.Y.S.2d 622, 407 N.E.2d 466; Matter of Myslborski v. Greenport Fire Dist., Volunteer Firemen's Co., 38 A.D.2d 646, 327 N.Y.S.2d 203). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers' Compensation ...