Claim of Maiceo v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Maiceo v. City of Yonkers

263 A.D. 914, 32 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7347

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 263 A.D. 914 (Claim of Maiceo v. City of Yonkers) 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 Maiceo v. City of Yonkers, 263 A.D. 914, 32 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant worked for the city under a rule (extra statutory) that the recipient of “ home relief ” should after receiving charitable aid be required to work out the relief at the rate of one day for each five dollars. While so engaged he received an injury which caused a schedule loss. The claimant was an employee and entitled to the benefit of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Hill, P. J., Bliss, Heffernan and Foster, JJ., concur; Crapser, J., dissents and votes to reverse the award on the ground that there was no contract of employment as between the city and the claimant and the Industrial Board was without jurisdiction to make the award.

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

Claimant worked for the city under a rule (extra statutory) that the recipient of “ home relief ” should after receiving charitable aid be required to work out the relief at the rate of one day for each five dollars. While so engaged he received an injury which caused a schedule loss. The claimant was an employee and entitled to the benefit of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Hill, P. J., Bliss, Heffernan and Foster, JJ., concur; Crapser, J., dissents and votes to reverse the award on the ground that there was no contract of employment as between the city and the claimant and the Industrial Board was without jurisdiction to make the award.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 914, 32 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-maiceo-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack