Claim of Greenstein v. Kastonowitz

261 A.D. 858, 24 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7793
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 1941·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

This award was against the carrier and the employer Moe Kastonowitz and Jack Kastonowitz doing business under the name of Moe Kastonowitz. The copartnership succeeded a corporation Kastonowitz Produce, Inc. Moe Kastonowitz was the active partner conducting the business and his uncle Jack Kastonowitz a silent partner. The policy was written in the name of Moe Kastonowitz. Claimant was injured in the course of the regular business of the copartnership. The intent to cover the business is not questioned. The name of the insured under such conditions is unimportant. (Matter of Lipschitz v. Hotel Charles, 226 App. Div. 839; affd., 252 N. Y. 518.) Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, HefEeman and Poster, JJ.

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

Claim of Greenstein v. Kastonowitz, 261 A.D. 858, 24 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

261 A.D. 858 (Claim of Greenstein v. Kastonowitz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Waller v. Keene
349 A.2d 628 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1976)
Waller v. Keene
338 A.2d 355 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1975)
Claim of Nicholas v. Fitzgibbons Boiler Co.
30 A.D.2d 1013 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1968)