Opinion
August 1, 1961
Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision and award of death benefits to the parents and six brothers and sisters of the deceased employee. The questions raised upon appeal were those of dependency and contributions by decedent. Decedent, age 17, had just graduated from high school and had started work at a Summer camp when he was drowned. While attending high school decedent earned $22 per month driving a school bus, $7 per week working Saturdays at a hospital and undisclosed sums at odd jobs. Although they could not state the exact size of each contribution, decedent's father and mother both testified that decedent regularly contributed a portion of his earnings to the family. The family lived on a 72-acre farm in North Carolina valued at $650. The father's total cash income during the year was $100, earned as an employe of another farmer, and he stated he had never earned enough to necessitate filing an income tax return. The questions of dependency and contributions are questions of fact for the board and only if there is no substantial evidence to support the decision of the board can the board's determination be reversed ( Matter of Hunter v. Goodstein Bros., 2 A.D.2d 387; Matter of Groff v. Certain-Teed Prods. Corp., 278 App. Div. 597, motion for leave to appeal denied 302 N.Y. 949). On the question of contributions the testimony of the mother and father established a pattern of contributions to the family on the part of the decedent from his earnings. As to dependency, while there is no statement of income and expenses for the family, the record does reveal that the family was destitute, that the father was sustaining himself, his wife and six minor children, beside decedent, on a cash income of $100 per year plus whatever produce was grown on the farm. In this situation it was reasonable for the board to infer that the family was detrimentally affected by the loss of decedent's modest contributions. (See Matter of Jensen v. Chenango G.L.F., 275 App. Div. 875; Matter of Bridges v. Merritt-Chapman Scott Corp., 11 A.D.2d 854.) Cases such as Matter of Metros v. King Furniture Co. ( 3 A.D.2d 779) and Matter of Martorama v. Tensolite Insulated Wire Co. ( 14 A.D.2d 462) are distinguishable on the grounds that in these cases there is evidence of substantial family income without any corresponding explanation of expenditures. Decision and award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board. Bergan, P.J., Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.