From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Renzo v. Reid Ice Cream Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 4, 1938
254 App. Div. 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Opinion

May 4, 1938.

Appeal from State Industrial Board.


The reinstated award properly gives credit for lump sum payments and increased payments to Renzo's children. Renzo died July 21, 1927, from injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment. Awards were made to his widow and dependent children. On July 13, 1931, a marriage ceremony was performed between the widow and one Van Slet. The widow lived and cohabited with Van Slet until his death on December 1, 1934, when she learned that he had a wife living and was undivorced. The marriage to Van Slet was void ab initio rather than voidable. However, claimant received her support and maintenance from him until December 1, 1934. Decision and award reversed, with costs against the State Industrial Board, and matter remitted to the Board to make an award reinstating the death benefits to the widow as of December 1, 1934, the advance payments credited in the award under review to be deducted therefrom. Hill, P.J., Rhodes and Bliss, JJ., concur; Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.


Summaries of

Matter of Renzo v. Reid Ice Cream Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 4, 1938
254 App. Div. 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)
Case details for

Matter of Renzo v. Reid Ice Cream Corp.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of IDA S. RENZO, by Reason of the Death of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 4, 1938

Citations

254 App. Div. 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Citing Cases

Matter of Wood

A marriage to a man who has a wife living and is undivorced is void ab initio rather than voidable. (Renzo v.…

Moll v. Brayer Bros. Construction Corp.

In Matter of Foster v. American Radiator Co. ( 249 App. Div. 460) it was held that the widow in that case was…