Claim of Industrial Commissioner v. Underwood, Elliott Fisher Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Industrial Commissioner v. Underwood, Elliott Fisher Co.

243 A.D. 658

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 243 A.D. 658 (Claim of Industrial Commissioner v. Underwood, Elliott Fisher Co.) 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 Industrial Commissioner v. Underwood, Elliott Fisher Co., 243 A.D. 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Claim by Industrial Commissioner to recover $500 for the special fund under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and $500 for the vocational rehabilitation fund under subdivision 9 of section 15. The employee resided and was killed in New Jersey. The employer maintained its office in New York. The employee received his instructions and his wages from the New York office and rendered his reports to the New York office. His duties as repair man of machines manufactured by the employer called him into the State of New Jersey mainly, but when there was no work for him in New Jersey then he was assigned to the same duty in New York. The question is whether the New York State Industrial Board had jurisdiction. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, MeNamee, Crapser and Heffeman, JJ.

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

Claim by Industrial Commissioner to recover $500 for the special fund under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and $500 for the vocational rehabilitation fund under subdivision 9 of section 15. The employee resided and was killed in New Jersey. The employer maintained its office in New York. The employee received his instructions and his wages from the New York office and rendered his reports to the New York office. His duties as repair man of machines manufactured by the employer called him into the State of New Jersey mainly, but when there was no work for him in New Jersey then he was assigned to the same duty in New York. The question is whether the New York State Industrial Board had jurisdiction. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, MeNamee, Crapser and Heffeman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-industrial-commissioner-v-underwood-elliott-fisher-co-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack