Claim of Kreisler v. Dennis Bridgehampton Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Kreisler v. Dennis Bridgehampton Construction Corp.

37 A.D.2d 891, 325 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3183

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 891 (Claim of Kreisler v. Dennis Bridgehampton Construction Corp.) 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 Kreisler v. Dennis Bridgehampton Construction Corp., 37 A.D.2d 891, 325 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed July 29, 1970, which determined that Dennis Bridgehampton Building Corp. was the special employer of claimant and Putpark Construction Co., Inc., his general employer. Various factors such as the right to control the methods of payment, the furnishing of equipment, the right to fire and the so-called relative nature of the work test are relevant in determining whether an employment exists, it being possible often to establish the relationship on the basis of one of these elements alone (Matter of Bianculli v. Times Sq. Stores, 34 A D 2d 696, 697). The board’s factual determination should be upheld since the special employment it found is supported by substantial evi[892]*892dence, particularly as to the supervision of construction and of the finishing of houses claimant was engaged in as opposed to his usual work of carpenter supervisor (cf. Matter of Goodman v. Stone & Webster Eng. Corp., 11 A D 2d 558, 559), the absence of payment by his general employer for the day of the accident and the method of payment for work previously done by claimant for Dennis Bridgehampton. Decision affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents filing briefs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed July 29, 1970, which determined that Dennis Bridgehampton Building Corp. was the special employer of claimant and Putpark Construction Co., Inc., his general employer. Various factors such as the right to control the methods of payment, the furnishing of equipment, the right to fire and the so-called relative nature of the work test are relevant in determining whether an employment exists, it being possible often to establish the relationship on the basis of one of these elements alone (Matter of Bianculli v. Times Sq. Stores, 34 A D 2d 696, 697). The board’s factual determination should be upheld since the special employment it found is supported by substantial evi[892]*892dence, particularly as to the supervision of construction and of the finishing of houses claimant was engaged in as opposed to his usual work of carpenter supervisor (cf. Matter of Goodman v. Stone & Webster Eng. Corp., 11 A D 2d 558, 559), the absence of payment by his general employer for the day of the accident and the method of payment for work previously done by claimant for Dennis Bridgehampton. Decision affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents filing briefs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 891, 325 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-kreisler-v-dennis-bridgehampton-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack