Claim of Braiter v. Addie Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Braiter v. Addie Co.

256 A.D. 882, 9 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5227

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 25, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 A.D. 882 (Claim of Braiter v. Addie Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claim of Braiter v. Addie Co., 256 A.D. 882, 9 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from that portion of an award for double indemnity which was made against the employer on account of its violation of section 131 of the Labor Law, Claimant, at the time of the injury, was a minor under seventeen years of age. He had worked for the employer for about two years, and concededly represented himself to be twenty years old at the time of his employment. Because of that representation, and as the person who employed him testified that he appeared to be more than seventeen years of age, an employment certificate was not required. These facts do not justify an employment without requiring the presentation of certificates mentioned in section 131 of the Labor Law. (Matter of Cross v. General Motors Corporation, 223 App. Div. 803; affd., 249 N. Y. 522; Matter of Kociolowicz v. Tonawanda Corrugated Box Co., Inc., 252 App. Div. 716.) Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P, J., Rhodes, MeNamee, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This is an appeal from that portion of an award for double indemnity which was made against the employer on account of its violation of section 131 of the Labor Law, Claimant, at the time of the injury, was a minor under seventeen years of age. He had worked for the employer for about two years, and concededly represented himself to be twenty years old at the time of his employment. Because of that representation, and as the person who employed him testified that he appeared to be more than seventeen years of age, an employment certificate was not required. These facts do not justify an employment without requiring the presentation of certificates mentioned in section 131 of the Labor Law. (Matter of Cross v. General Motors Corporation, 223 App. Div. 803; affd., 249 N. Y. 522; Matter of Kociolowicz v. Tonawanda Corrugated Box Co., Inc., 252 App. Div. 716.) Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P, J., Rhodes, MeNamee, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 882, 9 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-braiter-v-addie-co-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack