Claim of Falsey v. Eastman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Falsey v. Eastman

22 A.D.2d 1003, 254 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2416

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 22 A.D.2d 1003 (Claim of Falsey v. Eastman) 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 Falsey v. Eastman, 22 A.D.2d 1003, 254 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2416 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by Foxwood Farms, Ltd., and its carrier from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to support the hoard’s finding that Foxwood Farms, Ltd., was a general contractor within the meaning of section 56 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The sole issue on this appeal is Foxwood Farms’’ liability under section 56. There is here no finding of an employment relationship between Foxwood Farms and claimant (cf. Matter of Commissioner v. Ramapo Land Co., 9 A D 2d 800). Foxwood Farms was in the business of building and selling homes on land it owned in Onondaga County. Eastman Dry Wall Co., a partnership, was under verbal contract to construct the dry walls in these homes. Claimant in turn was an employee of Eastman. It has been long held as a- general proposition that section 56 does not apply to an owner of property who contracts with an independent contractor to do work on his own promises (Matter of Skora v. Conservative Bldg. Corp., 249 N. Y. 519; Matter of Dewhurst v. Simon, 295 N. Y. 352; Matter of Mietlinski v. Hickman, 285 App. Div. 306; Matter of Sutera v. Horowitz, 9 A D 2d 595). Decision reversed as to appellant Foxwood Farms, Ltd., and claim dismissed as to it, with costs against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by Foxwood Farms, Ltd., and its carrier from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to support the hoard’s finding that Foxwood Farms, Ltd., was a general contractor within the meaning of section 56 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The sole issue on this appeal is Foxwood Farms’’ liability under section 56. There is here no finding of an employment relationship between Foxwood Farms and claimant (cf. Matter of Commissioner v. Ramapo Land Co., 9 A D 2d 800). Foxwood Farms was in the business of building and selling homes on land it owned in Onondaga County. Eastman Dry Wall Co., a partnership, was under verbal contract to construct the dry walls in these homes. Claimant in turn was an employee of Eastman. It has been long held as a- general proposition that section 56 does not apply to an owner of property who contracts with an independent contractor to do work on his own promises (Matter of Skora v. Conservative Bldg. Corp., 249 N. Y. 519; Matter of Dewhurst v. Simon, 295 N. Y. 352; Matter of Mietlinski v. Hickman, 285 App. Div. 306; Matter of Sutera v. Horowitz, 9 A D 2d 595). Decision reversed as to appellant Foxwood Farms, Ltd., and claim dismissed as to it, with costs against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 1003, 254 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-falsey-v-eastman-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack