Legal Opinion

Claim of Anderson v. William Cohen Iron Works

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 7, 1974PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, J.

The appellants seek to deny disability benefits of the claimant, severely injured in an automobile accident, on the ground, he was not entitled to benefits pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 205 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law in that at the time of the accident he did not have a valid license to operate a motor vehicle. The question thus posed is whether *665claimant’s failure to have a valid operator’s license at the time of the accident constituted an “ illegal act ” within the meaning of subdivision 4 thus precluding his recovery of disability benefits. In our opinion the board could…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Townsend v. Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Ass'n of AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
  2. Phass v. MacClenathenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
  3. Wood v. SnyderIndiana Court of Appeals · 1925

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Firmes v. Chase Manhattan Automotive Finance Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
  2. Claim of Anderson v. William Cohen Iron WorksNew York Court of Appeals · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API