Claim of Penzara v. Maffia Bros.
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtConway, J.
The facts in this ease are not in dispute: the sole issue is whether the injury arose out of and in the course of claimant’s employment.
At the time of the injury claimant was a “ handyman ” employed in an automobile supply and machine shop. His duties included the repair of brake linings, turning down drums, and other matters concerning automobile parts and their sale *17and delivery to customers. His hours of work were from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays, and usually from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on Saturdays. Irrespective, however, of whether or not there was work to do,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Claim of Davis v. Newsweek MagazineNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
- Claim of Motto v. Cosmopolitan Tourist Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1951
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hanchett v. Brezner Tanning Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1966
- Maheux v. Cove-Craft, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1960
- Lee v. F. M. Henderson & AssociatesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Parker v. Travelers InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
- Claim of Congdon v. KlettNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.