Claim of Cowen v. S. Weinberg, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Cowen v. S. Weinberg, Inc.

252 A.D. 710, 299 N.Y.S. 33, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5831

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D. 710 (Claim of Cowen v. S. Weinberg, Inc.) 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 Cowen v. S. Weinberg, Inc., 252 A.D. 710, 299 N.Y.S. 33, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5831 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by employer and insurance carrier from an award of disability compensation [711]*711under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The injured claimant was a traveling salesman, selling on commission for three employers. The question is raised as to whether the relation of master and servant existed, it being contended that claimant was an independent contractor and not an employee. The State Industrial Board found that claimant was an employee. The evidence showed, among other facts, that claimant had been employed by the appealing employer as a salesman to take care of a restricted territory with instructions as to where he could go and not go and with certain prospective customers eliminated. The employer had paid to the insurance carrier a premium on a workmen’s compensation policy upon the commissions paid to the claimant. 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

Appeal by employer and insurance carrier from an award of disability compensation [711]*711under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The injured claimant was a traveling salesman, selling on commission for three employers. The question is raised as to whether the relation of master and servant existed, it being contended that claimant was an independent contractor and not an employee. The State Industrial Board found that claimant was an employee. The evidence showed, among other facts, that claimant had been employed by the appealing employer as a salesman to take care of a restricted territory with instructions as to where he could go and not go and with certain prospective customers eliminated. The employer had paid to the insurance carrier a premium on a workmen’s compensation policy upon the commissions paid to the claimant. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D. 710, 299 N.Y.S. 33, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-cowen-v-s-weinberg-inc-nyappdiv-1937.