Claim of Knudstad v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Knudstad v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank

252 A.D. 823, 299 N.Y.S. 406, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6377

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D. 823 (Claim of Knudstad v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank) 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 Knudstad v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, 252 A.D. 823, 299 N.Y.S. 406, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6377 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an award of disability compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The State Industrial Board has found that on March 3, 1936, the claimant was injured while employed as a painter. It also found that at the time he sustained the accident he was an employee and not an independent contractor. The sole question urged on this appeal is that “ for the purposes of this job ” claimant was an independent contractor and not an employee. The proof shows control of the claimant and a fellow-employee on the same job by the representative of the employer which, coupled with the other evidence in the case, is sufficient to sustain the finding of employment. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

Appeal from an award of disability compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The State Industrial Board has found that on March 3, 1936, the claimant was injured while employed as a painter. It also found that at the time he sustained the accident he was an employee and not an independent contractor. The sole question urged on this appeal is that “ for the purposes of this job ” claimant was an independent contractor and not an employee. The proof shows control of the claimant and a fellow-employee on the same job by the representative of the employer which, coupled with the other evidence in the case, is sufficient to sustain the finding of employment. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D. 823, 299 N.Y.S. 406, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-knudstad-v-emigrant-industrial-savings-bank-nyappdiv-1937.