IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL NEACOSIA, APPELLANT, v. NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY, ET
AL., RESPONDENTS, WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, APPELLANT.
85 N.Y.2d 471, 649 N.E.2d 1188, 626 N.Y.S.2d 44 (1995).
April 27, 1995
3 No. 77 (1995 NY Int. 085)
Decided April 27, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Robert A. Small, for individual Appellant.
Iris A. Steel, for Appellant Board.
James J. Fehrer, for Respondents.
SIMONS, J.:
Claimant Michael Neacosia was employed as a security officer by
respondent New York State Power Authority at a nuclear power plant
located near Oswego, New York. On May 17, 1991, Neacosia completed his
shift at 1:00 P.M. and left the plant in his car. He stopped to
deliver his uniforms to Karpinski's, a dry cleaner in Oswego. The
cleaner was one of several recommended by respondent as part of an
arrangement by which it provided its guards with uniforms, and
required that the uniforms be kept clean and presentable. Although the
uniform labels indicated that they could be machine washed, respondent
assumed the expense of dry cleaning and maintained and paid directly
accounts at the dry cleaning establishments. Alternatively, employees
could use other establishments than those recommended and submit
receipts to the employer for reimbursement.
After leaving some uniform shirts and trousers at Karpinski's,
claimant headed home along his usual route. During the trip he was
involved in an automobile accident and sustained severe injuries. The
issue before the Court, broadly stated, is whether his injuries arose
out of and in the course of his employment.
Neacosia submitted a claim for Workers' Compensation benefits
contending that he was injured while "completing a work related trip."
The employer denied liability claiming Neacosia was involved in an
accident with his personal vehicle on a public highway outside of work
hours. The Law Judge concluded upon stipulated facts that claimant's
travel had a dual purpose which served to extend the scope of his
employment, and accordingly awarded him Workers' Compensation
SNIPPETS:
AL., RESPONDENTS, WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, APPELLANT.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Claimant Michael Neacosia was employed as a security officer by respondent New York State
The cleaner was one of several recommended by respondent as part of an arrangement by which
Although the uniform labels indicated that they could be machine washed, respondent assumed
The issue before the Court, broadly stated, is whether his injuries arose out of and in the
The employer denied liability claiming Neacosia was involved in an accident with his personal
The Law Judge concluded upon stipulated facts that claimant's travel had a dual purpose which
Upon review by the Workers' Compensation Board the award was affirmed.
The two dissenters believed the employer's policies with respect to claimant's uniforms and
The general rule is that injuries sustained during travel to and from the place of employment
Auth, 72 NY2d 324, 327; see also, Matter of Greene v City of New York Dept. of Social
For example, an outside employee, such as a travelling salesperson who does not have a fixed
compensated.
Claimant relies upon yet another, the "special errand" exception, which provides that when
supra; Matter of Broich v New York State Union Coll.
of Optometry, 117 AD2d 868, 869).* The question on this appeal is whether the special errand
Although the claimant obtained an obvious personal benefit from the schooling, the court held
In each, however, there was encouragement or inducement by the employer for conduct which
That the employer obtains some benefit from the employee's errand will not alone sustain the
|
