Claim of Greenstein v. Kastonowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Greenstein v. Kastonowitz

261 A.D. 858, 24 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7793

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 261 A.D. 858 (Claim of Greenstein v. Kastonowitz) 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 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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 858, 24 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-greenstein-v-kastonowitz-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack