Claim of Dugo v. Sheet Metal Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Dugo v. Sheet Metal Manufacturing Co.

31 A.D.2d 689, 295 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2616

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 689 (Claim of Dugo v. Sheet Metal Manufacturing 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 Dugo v. Sheet Metal Manufacturing Co., 31 A.D.2d 689, 295 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2616 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which found the claimant to be the employee of the appellant employer (Sheet Metal) and affirmed an award of benefits. The claimant was employed on a full-time basis by the New York City Transit Authority and in addition to such employment, he undertook the repair of windows for Sheet Metal. The record shows that prior to his injury on November 3, 1965, the claimant had worked some 36 or 37 hours for Sheet Metal. He was paid $3 per hour and was required to use a time clock to verify his hours. He worked at his own convenience and without any direct supervision. Sheet Metal supplied all materials and tools necessary to accomplish the work. Sheet Metal made no withholding deductions from the earnings of claimant and the claimant apparently reported These amounts on Ms income tax returns. The sole issue upon this appeal is the status of the claimant as an employee of Sheet Metal. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.

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

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which found the claimant to be the employee of the appellant employer (Sheet Metal) and affirmed an award of benefits. The claimant was employed on a full-time basis by the New York City Transit Authority and in addition to such employment, he undertook the repair of windows for Sheet Metal. The record shows that prior to his injury on November 3, 1965, the claimant had worked some 36 or 37 hours for Sheet Metal. He was paid $3 per hour and was required to use a time clock to verify his hours. He worked at his own convenience and without any direct supervision. Sheet Metal supplied all materials and tools necessary to accomplish the work. Sheet Metal made no withholding deductions from the earnings of claimant and the claimant apparently reported These amounts on Ms income tax returns. The sole issue upon this appeal is the status of the claimant as an employee of Sheet Metal. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 689, 295 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-dugo-v-sheet-metal-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1968.