You are here: / / FALL ON SIDEWALK NEAR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT NOT COMPENSABLE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED...

FALL ON SIDEWALK NEAR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT NOT COMPENSABLE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits stemming from a fall on a sidewalk near her plaice of employment. The relevant criteria were explained:

As a general rule, “accidents that occur in public areas away from the workplace and outside of work hours are not compensable” …  and, thus, “injuries sustained during travel to and from the place of employment” are not compensable… . Where, as here, the accident occurred near the claimant’s place of employment, “there develops a gray area where the risks of street travel merge with the risks attendant with employment and where the mere fact that the accident took place on a public road or sidewalk may not ipso facto negate the right to compensation” … . Under these circumstances, injuries will be compensable only if there was “(1) a special hazard at the particular off-premises point and (2) a close association of the access route with the premises, so far as going and coming are concerned” … , permitting the conclusion that “the accident happened as an incident and risk of employment” … . “Notably, the Board in the exercise of its fact-finding powers has the authority to make a discretionary determination of the risks attendant to employment under the particular circumstances of a case”… .

Here, there is no evidence that there was any special hazard on the uneven sidewalk where claimant fell, which was open to and used by the public, as the danger “existed to any passerby traveling along the street in that location” … . The sidewalk was near the privately-owned building where claimant worked, but the building housed many businesses and a restaurant and was open to the public, and there was “no showing that it was otherwise controlled by the employer, that workers were encouraged to use it or that it existed solely to provide access to [her] workplace” … . As substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant’s accident did not occur in the course of her employment, it will not be disturbed.  Matter of Brennan v New York State Dept. of Health, 2018 NY Slip Op 01974, Third Dept 3-22-18

WORKERS’S COMPENSATION LAW (FALL ON SIDEWALK NEAR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT NOT COMPENSABLE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
THE SPEEDY TRIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING WERE VIOLATED (THIRD DEPT).
agreement to maintain a driveway on a right-of-way ran with the land.
SENTENCE NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT MUST BE VACATED AS THE RESULT OF AN INVOLUNTARY PLEA.
CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE INFORMED AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA TO A SEX OFFENSE THAT HE OR SHE MAY BE SUBJECT TO A MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 CIVIL ACTION AS THE RELEASE DATE APPROACHES (THIRD DEPT).
BY STATUTE FAMILY COURT MAY NOT SET A GOAL OF ADOPTION BY SOCIAL SERVICES WITHOUT ORDERING THE FILING OF A PETITION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS; HERE FAMILY COURT ATTEMPTED TO SET THE INCOMPATIBLE GOALS OF ADOPTION AND REUNIFICATION WITH THE PARENT; THE INTENT OF FAMILY COURT IS CLEAR (HOPED-FOR REUNIFICATION) BUT THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE METHOD CHOSEN BY THE COURT (THIRD DEPT).
Department of Environmental Conservation’s Finding that the Owners of Land on Either Side of a Creek Also Owned a Dam Across the Creek, and Therefore Were Responsible for Making the Dam Safe, Was Not Supported by Substantial Evidence—Dam Had Been Conveyed to the City in Condemnation Proceeding
Family Court Cannot Review Support Magistrate’s Order in Absence of Specific Objection

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

AUTO DAMAGE APPRAISER NOT AN EMPLOYEE, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD REVERSED... SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF PETITION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, LACK OF STANDING...