Claim of Coppola v. Tilyou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Coppola v. Tilyou

271 A.D.2d 848

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 848 (Claim of Coppola v. Tilyou) 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 Coppola v. Tilyou, 271 A.D.2d 848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision and award by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Appellants raise two points on appeal: (1) That claimant at the time of his injury was the employee of an independent contractor, and (2) that the property in question was not devoted to a business operated for pecuniary gain. The first issue was a question of fact upon which there was conflicting testimony. We may not weigh such testimony and are bound by the decision of the board thereon. As to the second issue, it appears that ground upon which the bungalow stood was leveled off and used as a parking space within six months after the accident. The board might draw the inference that the demolition of the bungalow, at which claimant was working when injured, was preparatory to devoting the space to a parking lot. The board was therefore justified in finding that the employers were engaged in a business for pecuniary gain. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Heffernan, Brewster, Poster and Lawrence, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., dissents.

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

Appeal from a decision and award by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Appellants raise two points on appeal: (1) That claimant at the time of his injury was the employee of an independent contractor, and (2) that the property in question was not devoted to a business operated for pecuniary gain. The first issue was a question of fact upon which there was conflicting testimony. We may not weigh such testimony and are bound by the decision of the board thereon. As to the second issue, it appears that ground upon which the bungalow stood was leveled off and used as a parking space within six months after the accident. The board might draw the inference that the demolition of the bungalow, at which claimant was working when injured, was preparatory to devoting the space to a parking lot. The board was therefore justified in finding that the employers were engaged in a business for pecuniary gain. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Heffernan, Brewster, Poster and Lawrence, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-coppola-v-tilyou-nyappdiv-1946.