Claim of Clearo v. Eurokraft Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Clearo v. Eurokraft Construction Co.

74 A.D.2d 936, 426 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10755

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.2d 936 (Claim of Clearo v. Eurokraft Construction 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 Clearo v. Eurokraft Construction Co., 74 A.D.2d 936, 426 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10755 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed November 29, 1978. Claimant was injured while installing a roof on a house owned by Winfred Lucks. The issue to be resolved is whether at the time of the injury claimant was an employee or acted as an independent [937]*937contractor. He was to be paid $10 per square of roofing installed with all material supplied by Lucks. No withholding or Social Security taxes were to he deducted, and claimant was authorized to obtain additional help on his own without any direction or control by Lucks. The board has determined that there was no employer-employee relationship and, in our view, there is substantial evidence to support this determination (Matter of Beach v Velzy, 238 NY 100). Decision affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Main and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed November 29, 1978. Claimant was injured while installing a roof on a house owned by Winfred Lucks. The issue to be resolved is whether at the time of the injury claimant was an employee or acted as an independent [937]*937contractor. He was to be paid $10 per square of roofing installed with all material supplied by Lucks. No withholding or Social Security taxes were to he deducted, and claimant was authorized to obtain additional help on his own without any direction or control by Lucks. The board has determined that there was no employer-employee relationship and, in our view, there is substantial evidence to support this determination (Matter of Beach v Velzy, 238 NY 100). Decision affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Main and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 936, 426 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-clearo-v-eurokraft-construction-co-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack