Friello v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWalter B. Hart, J.
Motion by defendant, the Carborundum Company, for summary judgment upon the ground that the action is barred by section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. There are triable issues as to whether the notices given by the compensation carrier comply with the requirements of subdivision 2 of section 29, both with regard to their content and the manner in which they were served (Gorman v. Transocean Air Lines, 158 F. Supp. 339 ; cf. Teresta v. City of New York, 277 App. Div. 787, revd. on other grounds 304 N. Y. 440).
Another circumstance here present would seem to render summary judgment…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Teresta v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1952
- Skakandy v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
- Skakandy v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
- McCue v. J. F. Shea Co.New York Supreme Court · 1940
- McCue v. J. F. Shea Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Friello v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1962