Legal Opinion

Claim of Reynolds v. Masick

New York Court of Appeals

Decided June 8, 1982PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. Claim of Anderson v. William Cohen Iron WorksNew York Court of Appeals · 1976

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. People v. TroianoNassau County District Court · 1990
  2. Claim of Richardson v. Fiedler Roofing, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API