Legal Opinion
Matter of Bollard v. Engel
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 18, 1938PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Per curiam
We think the evidence warranted tfie finding that the employment was not interrupted while the deceased was returning from supper on the occasion in question, (Cf. Matter of Johnson v. Smith, 263 N. Y. 10; Matter of Goldman v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 276 N. Y. 582.) The employer’s first report of injury was not without probative force merely because it was not made upon personal knowledge (Gangi v. Fradus, 227 N. Y. 452, 456, 457).
The order should be affirmed, with costs.
Crane, Ch, J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubrs, Loeghran, Finch and Rjkpey, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gangi v. . FradusNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Matter of Johnson v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1933
- Matter of Goldman v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1937
3Cited by33 opinions
- Claim of Davis v. Newsweek MagazineNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
- Middleton v. Coxsackie Correctional FacilityNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Claim of Doca v. Federal Stevedoring Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1954
- Hornyak v. the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1973
- Claim of Smith v. Venezian Lamp Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1957
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.