Claim of Hamilla v. Gade

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Hamilla v. Gade

252 A.D. 712, 298 N.Y.S. 809, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5835

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 252 A.D. 712 (Claim of Hamilla v. Gade) 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 Hamilla v. Gade, 252 A.D. 712, 298 N.Y.S. 809, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by non-insured employer from an award.of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law for medical expenses and disability compensation. The principal point raised by the appellant is that the claimant was a farm laborer and, therefore, is not engaged in a hazardous employment under the law. The employer was a farmer and his principal business was the operation of a dairy farm. Claimant worked on this farm for him. However, the employer also owned and operated a power mill for the grinding of grain for which services he was paid by a considerable number of customers. Claimant was injured while operating this power mill grinding grist for one of these paying customers. The State Industrial Board has found that the employer conducted this milling as a separate business, for pecuniary gain, and not incidental to his farm operations. The evidence amply sustains this finding. Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Hill,;P. J., MeNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ., concur; Rhodes, J., dissents on the ground that the claimant was a farm laborer.

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

Appeal by non-insured employer from an award.of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law for medical expenses and disability compensation. The principal point raised by the appellant is that the claimant was a farm laborer and, therefore, is not engaged in a hazardous employment under the law. The employer was a farmer and his principal business was the operation of a dairy farm. Claimant worked on this farm for him. However, the employer also owned and operated a power mill for the grinding of grain for which services he was paid by a considerable number of customers. Claimant was injured while operating this power mill grinding grist for one of these paying customers. The State Industrial Board has found that the employer conducted this milling as a separate business, for pecuniary gain, and not incidental to his farm operations. The evidence amply sustains this finding. Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Hill,;P. J., MeNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ., concur; Rhodes, J., dissents on the ground that the claimant was a farm laborer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D. 712, 298 N.Y.S. 809, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-hamilla-v-gade-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack