Claim of Angelo v. Triangle Broom & Brush Co.
243 A.D. 838
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1935·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinion
The question is of coverage. The policy was issued to a copartnersMp. One of the partners retired and the remaining partner continued the business under the same name at the same place. Claimant was injured wMle employed by the business being conducted by the remaining partner. (Matter of Lipschitz v. Hotel Charles, 252 N. Y. 518.) Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Claim of Angelo v. Triangle Broom & Brush Co., 243 A.D. 838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).
243 A.D. 838 (Claim of Angelo v. Triangle Broom & Brush Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Matter of Smith v. Park
2018 NY Slip Op 3584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
David Lazarus v. Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company, a Body Corporate
267 F.2d 634 (D.C. Circuit, 1959)
Claim of Fredenburgh v. Benjamin
2 A.D.2d 912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)