Respole v. Schorr
| Decision Date | 08 February 1966 |
| Parties | Claim of Florence RESPOLE, Respondent, v. Max SCHORR et al., Appellants, Workmen's Compensation Board, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bernard F. Farley, New York City, for appellants.
Jacowitz & Bardack, Brooklyn, for claimant-respondent.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., for Workmen's Compensation Bd., .
Before GIBSON, P. J., and HERLIHY, REYNOLDS, TAYLOR and AULISI, JJ.
Appeal from a decision of the board which determined that at that time of the accident the claimant was within her employment.
The claimant was a secretary in the employer's law office and was requested to go to a law office and secure a case file, similar errands having been requested of her on prior occasions. Her regular working hours were from 9:30 a. m. to 5:30 p. m. and it was her practice to leave her home at Bayside, Long Island, about 8:30 a. m. On the day of the accident she left earlier, having made arrangements with the law office to pick up the file. While on her way to perform the errand and likewise to go to work, in descending the stairs to the subway she fell and sustained injuries. Her employer in his report to the board stated that the accident happened while the claimant was on her way to pick up a file and so testified at the hearing. A lawyer from the law office corroborated the claimant's testimony.
On this uncontroverted evidence, the board found .
The carrier contends that no particular time for the performance of the errand having been specified by the employer, but to be performed at her option, she was not within her employment on the morning in question and at the time of the accident.
We find that there is no fair basis in this record to sustain the carrier's argument. The factual issues were found in favor of the claimant and the record supports such determination. (See Matter of Mason v. New York Abstract Co., 11 A.D.2d 569, 200 N.Y.S.2d 677.)
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ricciardi v. Aniero Concrete Co., Inc.
...926), or where the employee has been directed to perform a 'special errand' for his employer on his way to work. (Matter of Respole v. Schorr, 25 A.D.2d 581, 266 N.Y.S.2d 863; Matter of Charak v. Leddy, 23 A.D.2d 437, 261 N.Y.S.2d 486; Matter of Mason v. New York Abstract Co., 11 A.D.2d 569......
-
Neacosia v. New York Power Authority
...438, 261 N.Y.S.2d 486; see also, Matter of Weinstein v. 16 E. 58th St. Corp., 92 A.D.2d 678, 460 N.Y.S.2d 201; Matter of Respole v. Schorr, 25 A.D.2d 581, 266 N.Y.S.2d 863; cf., Matter of Oehley v. Syracuse Boys Club, 151 A.D.2d 825, 542 N.Y.S.2d 799). The premise of the rule is that the er......
-
Costa v. New York State Workmen's Compensation Bd.
...926), or where the employee has been directed to perform a 'special errand' for his employer on his way to work. (Matter of Respole v. Schorr, 25 A.D.2d 581, 266 N.Y.S.2d 863; Matter of Charak v. Leddy, 23 A.D.2d 437, 261 N.Y.S.2d 486; Matter of Mason v. New York Abstract Co., 11 A.D.2d 569......
-
O'Rourke v. Manuet Restaurant, Ivy House
...is entitled to compensation if injured during that trip, even if there is no deviation from the normal route (Matter of Respole v. Schorr, 25 A.D.2d 581, 266 N.Y.S.2d 863; Matter of Mayer v. All Electronics, 1 A.D.2d 715, 146 N.Y.S.2d 793), a trip is not transformed into an employment erran......