MATTER OF DALY v. Opportunities for Broome, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Iacovelli v. New York Times Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Claim of Yarter v. S. R. Beltrone, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Claim of Cargain v. Poritzky's Meat Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
- Claim of Salters v. Town of Woodstock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Rosen v. First Manhattan Bank (N.Y. 1994)
- Claim of Stover v. Mitchell Transport Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Claim of Gardeski v. Dynamic Auto Body, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Claim of Musicus v. Broadway Pastry Shop, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- Claim of Newman v. Clarkstown Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
- Claim of Stein v. New York Times Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
- Claim of Osterberg v. Columbia University (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
- Claim of Fallon v. National Gypsum Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
- Claim of Robles v. Mossgood Theatre-Saunders Realty (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
- Claim of Molloy v. Roosevelt Raceway (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
- the Claim of Picinich v. Cayuga Crimmins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
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
Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the determination of the Workmen’s Compensation Board reinstated.
Although there may have been some evidence to rebut the presumption of a work-connected injury (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 21), there was no showing that the Workmen’s Compensation Board credited this proof or found that the presumption had been rebutted. In view of this the Appellate Division erred in holding that there was no proof to sustain the board’s finding because there was a continuing presumption of fact by virtue of the statute.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
Order reversed, with costs, and the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board reinstated in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.