New York Court of Appeals, 1949

Matter of Kleid v. Carr Bros.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 29, 1949 · <italic>Per Curiam.</italic>

90 N.E.2d 185; 300 N.Y. 270; 1949 N.Y. LEXIS 914 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Middleton v. Coxsackie Correctional Facility (N.Y. 1975)
Claim of Guggenheim v. C. Hedke & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1969)
Claim of Laird v. Springer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1968)
Claim of Brasch v. Investors Funding Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1965)
Claim of Vickers v. Bryant Park Building, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1962)
Claim of Ackerman v. Dairymen's League Cooperative Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1960)
Claim of Hoffman v. Grain Handling Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1958)
Claim of Moraes v. National Biscuit Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1956)
Claim of Mietlinski v. Hickman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1954)
Claim of Doca v. Federal Stevedoring Co. (N.Y. 1954)
Claim of Davis v. Newsweek Magazine (N.Y. 1953)
Kumkumian v. City of New York (N.Y. 1953)
Meaney v. Keating (New York Supreme Court 1951)
Claim of McCormack v. National City Bank (N.Y. 1951)

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

Per Curiam.

Since this unwitnessed accident took place during working hours in a place where Kleid’s work commonly took him, the section 21 presumption justified the board’s finding that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, even though Kleid’s presence at the exact spot was unexplained (Matter of Department of Taxation & Finance v. Cohen, 298 N. Y. 825; Matter of Welz v. Markel Service, 296 N. Y. 640; Matter of Mayer v. Faber Pencil Co., 274 App. Div. 1079, motion for leave to appeal denied 298 N. Y. 935; Matter of Boehm v. Sokol Hall Holding Corp., 274 App. Div. 954, motion for leave to appeal denied 298 N. Y. 931; Matter of Wolmetz v. Wall, 272 App. Div. 982, motion for leave to appeal denied 297 N. Y. 1042).

Furthermore, employer-appellant’s first report of injury, filed with the board, contained an admission that Kleid was working at his regular occupation when injured, which admission was competent evidence of that fact (Matter of Bollard v. Engel, 278 N. Y. 463).

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

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