Claim of Goldstein v. Marc Eidlitz & Son, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Goldstein v. Marc Eidlitz & Son, Inc.

240 A.D. 925

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 925 (Claim of Goldstein v. Marc Eidlitz & Son, 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 Goldstein v. Marc Eidlitz & Son, Inc., 240 A.D. 925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Award reversed and claim dismissed, with costs against the State Industrial Board, on the ground that the New York Machinery Wrecking and Boiler Cutting Company was a purchaser of the material and not a subcontractor. Hill, P. J., Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Rhodes and McNamee, JJ., dissent on the ground that the New York Machinery Wrecking and Boiler Cutting Company was doing the work contracted to be done by the general contractor, Mare Eidlitz & Son, Incorporated, and, therefore, was a subcontractor.

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

Award reversed and claim dismissed, with costs against the State Industrial Board, on the ground that the New York Machinery Wrecking and Boiler Cutting Company was a purchaser of the material and not a subcontractor. Hill, P. J., Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Rhodes and McNamee, JJ., dissent on the ground that the New York Machinery Wrecking and Boiler Cutting Company was doing the work contracted to be done by the general contractor, Mare Eidlitz & Son, Incorporated, and, therefore, was a subcontractor.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-goldstein-v-marc-eidlitz-son-inc-nyappdiv-1933.