STALEY, JR., J.

Appeal by the employer and insurance carrier from two decisions of the Workmen's Compensation Board dated February 21, 1966 and July 27, 1966 which made an award of death benefits to the claimant, and which reformed the insurance carrier's compensation policy to cover the intent of the parties to the effect that the insured was Ralph Valenti, doing business as Rafael's Restaurant, and which determined that the accidental death of Clarence Valenti arose out of and in the course of his employment. On January 14, 1964, the claimant's decedent, Clarence Valenti, was employed as the manager of Rafael's Restaurant and, during the performance of his duties, was shot to death by an occupant of the restaurant, not an employee. The shooting occurred about 9:45 P.M., during a lull in the business operations because of a blizzard while the decedent and a group of employees were seated near the bar watching television. The appellants contend that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment, that the decedent was not an employee at the time of death, and that the workmen's compensation policy, in effect at the time, named the assured as Clarence Valenti, doing business as Rafael's Restaurant. The claimant's evidence established that Ralph Valenti acquired the restaurant in 1957 from the estate of an uncle, and received a restaurant liquor license in 1957 in his name, doing business as Rafael's Restaurant, which license was in effect at the time of the accident. Ralph Valenti, as tenant, entered into a written lease on April 1, 1961 with his father, Clarence Valenti, as landlord, to lease the restaurant building, known as Rafael's Restaurant for a three-year period commencing April 1, 1961. He maintained a bank account and signed checks bearing the name of Rafael's Restaurant, and secured burglary insurance and insurance under the Disability Benefits Law in his name, doing business as Rafael's Restaurant. Prior to January 7, 1963, the workmen's compensation policy had been issued in the name of Ralph Valenti, but for the period from March 13, 1963 to March 13, 1964, when the workmen's compensation insurance was secured through a new and different agent, for some reason which neither the insurer nor the agent has explained, the name of the assured on the policy was stated as Clarence Valenti, doing business as Rafael's Restaurant. The insurance agent, who secured the policy, testified that the intention was to insure the business, known as Rafael's Restaurant, and that the payments for the insurance premiums were by checks, all signed by Ralph Valenti. Although the appellants contend that there were no premiums paid on the earnings of Clarence Valenti as an employee for workmen's compensation coverage, nevertheless, he was listed as an employee on the payroll book of the employer and his Federal and State Income Tax Withholding and Social Security payments were made by Ralph Valenti, doing business as Rafael's Restaurant. On February 3, 1958, the State Liquor Authority issued a certification of approval for the employment of Clarence Valenti, as manager of the employer, Ralph Valenti, doing business as Rafael's Restaurant. The Workmen's Compensation Board found that "it was by mutual mistake that the parties designated Clarence Valenti as the owner of the insured premises and that the evidence indicates that it was the clear intention of the parties to insure the risk and to designate the owner as Ralph Valenti, doing business as Rafael's Restaurant." The record substantially sustains the decision and reformation of the policy which lies within the board's power. ( Royal Ind. Co. v. Heller, 256 N.Y. 322; Heath v. State of New York, 278 App. Div. 8; Matter of Blythe v. Cochran, 19 A.D.2d 934, mot. for lv. to app. den. 13 N.Y.2d 601.) The record further supports the board's findings that the decedent was an employee of Ralph Valenti doing business as Rafael's Restaurant at the time of the accident, and that his death arose out of and in the course of his employment. At the time of the shooting, the decedent was on duty in his place of employment and was, therefore, in the course of his employment. Although there is no indication of the reason for the shooting, the claimant is entitled to the benefit of the presumption that, when an employee is accidentally killed in the course of his employment, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, the death arose out of the employment. (Workmen's Compensation Law, § 21; Matter of De Angelis v. Garfinkel Painting Co., 20 A.D.2d 162, affd. 18 N.Y.2d 727; Matter of Heyward v. Power Serv. Station, 27 A.D.2d 618.) The record indicates that this presumption has not been overcome by substantial evidence. Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board. Gibson, P.J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Staley, Jr., J.