Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1918

Claim of Santacroce v. Sag Harbor Brick Works

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 6, 1918 · Kellogg

182 A.D. 442; 169 N.Y.S. 695; 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7881

Counsel

Amos H. Stephens [E. Clyde Sherwood and William B. Davis of counsel], for the appellants., Merton E. Lewis, Attorney-General [E. C. Aiken of counsel], and Robert W. Bonynge, counsel to the Commission, for the respondent.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

A. C. Lawrence Leather Co. v. Barnhill (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1933)
Claim of Joseph v. United Kimono Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1921)
James Irby v. Republic Creosoting Company (5th Cir. 1955)
Riley v. Oxford Paper Co. (Me. 1954)
Claim of Mausert v. Albany Builders Supply Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1928)
Claim of Neuberger v. Third Avenue Railway Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1920)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

John M. Kellogg, P. J.:

The claimant, a brickmaker, was required to perform his duties while standing on a pile of brick about fifteen feet above the ground. He was seized “ with an attack of vertigo, or with some similar disorder, which caused him to fall to the frozen ground.” It is urged that his injury was the result of the vertigo and not of an accident, but the findings and proceedings indicate that he was in good health at the time and no reason is given for the fall except the dizziness. The natural inference is that the dizziness, the fall and the injury resulted from the elevated position in which he was standing while performing his work.

*443' Appellants rely, apparently with confidence, upon Matter of Collins v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co. (171 App. Div. 381). In that case the superintendent, who was standing upon the street, fell to the ground and received his injury. There was no apparent cause for the fall aside from an attack of cardiac syncope to which the previous condition of his heart predisposed him. Here the fainting and the fall were caused by the conditions under which the man was working.

We conclude the award should be affirmed.

Award unanimously affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.