Claim of Church v. Mittelstaedt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Church v. Mittelstaedt

255 A.D. 904, 7 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9328

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D. 904 (Claim of Church v. Mittelstaedt) 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 Church v. Mittelstaedt, 255 A.D. 904, 7 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by uninsured employers. Employee was hired as a handy-man by the sisters Harriet and Emma Mittelstaedt, who owned and operated [905]*905a building No. 86 University place, New York city, where he did general janitor work. It was occupied by tenants and by the employers. Until a brief period before the injury, Harriet conducted a store whereat antiques were sold, at No. 86. This business was moved to No. 84, of the same street, and claimant continued to act as janitor there. The award was properly made against both employers. If the employment at 84 was rendered to Harriet alone, she was a special employer and the two sisters were general employers. The claimant worked a portion of the time at 86 and a portion at 84. (Quirk v. Erie Railroad Co., 235 N. Y. 405.) Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Hill, P. J., McNamee, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Crapser, J., dissents and votes to reverse the award.

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

Appeal by uninsured employers. Employee was hired as a handy-man by the sisters Harriet and Emma Mittelstaedt, who owned and operated [905]*905a building No. 86 University place, New York city, where he did general janitor work. It was occupied by tenants and by the employers. Until a brief period before the injury, Harriet conducted a store whereat antiques were sold, at No. 86. This business was moved to No. 84, of the same street, and claimant continued to act as janitor there. The award was properly made against both employers. If the employment at 84 was rendered to Harriet alone, she was a special employer and the two sisters were general employers. The claimant worked a portion of the time at 86 and a portion at 84. (Quirk v. Erie Railroad Co., 235 N. Y. 405.) Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Hill, P. J., McNamee, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Crapser, J., dissents and votes to reverse the award.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 904, 7 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-church-v-mittelstaedt-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack