Claim of Reynolds v. Masick
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The Appellate Division correctly held, as a matter of law, that claimant was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the automobile accident in which claimant was injured was caused by the faulty brakes on his vehicle. Claimant’s own testimony at the compensation board hearing was that he knew and had known that the brakes on his car needed repair. By continuing to operate the vehicle knowing that the brakes were in need of repair, claimant was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Claim of Anderson v. William Cohen Iron WorksNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
3Cited by2 opinions
- People v. TroianoNassau County District Court · 1990
- Claim of Richardson v. Fiedler Roofing, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985