Case Name: In the Matter of the Claim of Ida Adams et al., against New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, Respondent. State Industrial Commmission, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-01-30
Citations: 220 N.Y. 579
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Ida Adams et al., against New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, Respondent. State Industrial Commmission, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 220
Pages: 579–582

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Claim of Ida Adams et al., against New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, Respondent. State Industrial Commmission, Appellant.
Workmen’s Compensation Law — section 87 requiring deposit to meet future payments does not apply to award made to widow.
Section 27 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Cons. Laws, cli. 67), which requires a deposit in the state fund by an employer and self-insurer of money to meet future payments of an award does not apply to an award made to a widow since it does not content- plate and fails to provide for weighing or determining the contingency of the widow’s remarriage, which would bring about a cessation of payments.
Matter of Adams v. N. Y., Ontario & W. Ry. Co., 175 App. Div. 714, affirmed.
(Argued January 17, 1915;
decided January 30, 1917.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered November 14, 1916, which reversed an order of the state industrial commission requiring the defendant to deposit in the state fund moneys sufficient to meet future payments of award.
Egburt E. Woodbury, Attorney-General (E. C. Aiken and Robert W. Bonynge of counsel), for appellant.
Merwin K. Hart for Utica Mutual Compensation Insurance Corporation.
R. A. Mansfield Hobbs for Self Insurers Association.
Faulkner Hill for United States Realty and Improvement Company.
John J. Cushing for R. S. Kerbaugh, Inc.
M. B. Hoffman for Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company.
C. L. Andrus for respondent.

Opinion:
Cuddeback, J.
The order appealed from which required the deposit in the state fund by the employer and self-insurer of the money to meet the future payments of an award was properly reversed at the Appellate Division, for the reason that section 27 of the Workmen's Compensation Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 67), which requires such deposit, does not apply to an award made to a widow. It does not contemplate and fails to provide for weighing or determining the contingency of the widow's remarriage — which would bring about a cessation of the payments to her.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs against the state industrial commission.