Opinion · Nylaw New York

MATTER OF ABRAMS v. COUNTY OF ALBANY, 266 App. Div. 885 (1943)

In the Matter of Claim of J. NELSON ABRAMS, Appellant, against COUNTY OFALBANY et al., Respondents.STATE Indus. Bd., Respondent., 266 A.D. 885 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department. 1943)

Type
Opinion
Court
Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction
Nylaw
Date
1943-06-30
Topic
general

MATTER OF ABRAMS v. COUNTY OF ALBANY, 266 App. Div. 885 (1943) In the Matter of the Claim of J. NELSON ABRAMS, Appellant, against COUNTY OFALBANY et al., Respondents.STATE INDUSTRIAL BOARD, Respondent.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department. June 30, 1943.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed MATTER OF ABRAMS v. COUNTY OF ALBANY, 266 App. Div. 885 (1943). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

MATTER OF ABRAMS v. COUNTY OF ALBANY,266 App. Div. 885(1943)
In the Matter of the Claim of J. NELSON ABRAMS, Appellant, against COUNTY OF
ALBANY et al., Respondents.
STATE INDUSTRIAL BOARD, Respondent.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.
June 30, 1943.
Decision in the above-entitled matter, handed down May 5, 1943 [ante, p. 807], amended to read as follows: An award was made by the referee to claimant who suffered a coronary attack followed by angina pectoris while shoveling sand into a truck about six feet high. The award was rescinded byPage 886the Industrial Board upon the authority ofMatter of LaFountainv.LaFountain(284 N.Y. 729). The import of that decision as popularly understood has been modified byMatter of Bohmv.L.R.S. B. Realty Co., Inc.(264 App. Div. 962, affd.289 N.Y. 808) ;Matter of Wardv.Fifth Ave. Building Co.(264 App. Div. 797, leave to appeal denied289 N.Y. 854);Matter ofMcCormackv.Wood Harmon Warranty Corp.(288 N.Y. 614);Matter of Strongv.Lang Engine Garage Co.(263 App. Div. 1032, leave to appeal denied288 N.Y. 739). Decision reversed, and the matter remitted to the State Industrial Board for reconsideration and for the taking of additional proof if they are so advised, with costs and disbursements to the claimant appellant against the respondents, employer and insurance carrier. The printing disbursements are fixed at ninety-three dollars. Hill, P.J., Crapser, Heffernan and Schenck, JJ., concur; Bliss, J., taking no part.