Legal Opinion · Dissent

Claim of Penzara v. Maffia Bros.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 23, 1954Published

1DissentVan Voorhis, J.

In my view, the injury to claimant’s eye did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The employers are two brothers operating a small automobile supply and machine shop. Claimant was employed as a handyman. On the day in question, while he was bending in a vise a spring clip for the glove compartment of his automobile, the spring slipped injuring his left eye. He was working upon his own automobile, not used in the service of his employers.

Although this accident happened at five o’clock and he was required to remain upon his employers’ premises until the shop closed at 5:30 in…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Matter of Heitz v. . RuppertNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Matter of Wilson v. General Motors Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1949
  3. Sauter v. New York Tribune, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1953
  4. Matter of Di Salvio v. . Menihan Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1919
  5. Fluegel v. CoudertNew York Court of Appeals · 1927

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API