You are here: / / THE UNAVAILABILIITY OF PARKING FOR WORK REQUIRED THAT CLAIMANT CROSS A...

THE UNAVAILABILIITY OF PARKING FOR WORK REQUIRED THAT CLAIMANT CROSS A DANGEROUS ROAD TO GET TO HIS WORKPLACE; THE INJURIES SUFFERED WHEN CLAIMANT WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WERE THEREFORE COMPENSABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the unavailability of parking for work created a special hazard. Therefore claimant’s being struck by a vehicle while walking to his place of employment resulted in a compensable injury:

… [C]laimant, a food service worker at Montefiore-Nyack Hospital, sustained serious injuries when he was struck by a motor vehicle while walking towards the hospital entrance prior to the start of his work shift. * * *

… [T]he Board could reasonably determine that a special hazard existed due to the unavailability of parking along the eastern side of Route 9W, requiring claimant to, at a certain spot without a crosswalk, cross Route 9W — a dangerous public roadway — to access the loading dock entrance, which, significantly, was not used by the public and regularly used by claimant … . Further, based upon the regular use of the loading dock entrance by claimant and other food service workers, combined with the close proximity of the accident to the loading dock area, there was a close association of the access route with the premises, as far as going and coming are concerned, permitting the conclusion that the accident happened as an incident and risk of employment. Matter of Cadme v FOJP Serv. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 04525, Third Dept 7-22-21

 

You might also like
Criteria for Termination of Parental Rights on the Ground of Mental Illness Explained
Records of a Police Investigation of a Police Officer Who Has Been Terminated Are Not “Personnel Records” Subject to Exemption from Disclosure Pursuant to the “Personnel Records” Provision of the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)
MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION CAN BE BASED UPON A SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE, NOT SHOWN HERE (THIRD DEPT).
Reference to Statute in Indictment Cures Any Omission from the Indictment’s Description of the Elements of the Offense
Questions of Fact Existed Re: Whether Plaintiffs Were Entitled to Rely on Defendant’s Assurances Dog Was Not Aggressive
Employer Was Not Prejudiced by Claimant’s Failure to Give Timely Notice of the Accident, Claim Allowed
COMPUTER DESKTOP ENGINEER NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF JOB PLACEMENT SERVICE.
Comparative Negligence Not Available in Labor Law 240 (1) Action—Claimant Entitled to Partial Summary Judgment—Suspended Cable On Which Claimant Was Walking to Access Scaffolding Broke

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW PROVISION... CLAIMANT, AN AGENT LICENSED TO SELL LIFE INSURANCE, ANNUITIES AND OTHER INVESTMENT...