Claim of Mangiovi v. Goodstein Building Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Mangiovi v. Goodstein Building Corp.

26 A.D.2d 602, 271 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3866

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

DecidedJune 28, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 602 (Claim of Mangiovi v. Goodstein Building 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 Mangiovi v. Goodstein Building Corp., 26 A.D.2d 602, 271 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Appeal by Chelsea Lane Apartments Company (Chelsea) and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which found claimant was its employee and affirmed an award. Appellants contend that claimant was an employee of Goodstein Building Corporation (Goodstein) in that he was hired and under the supervision of an alleged employee of Good-stein. Chelsea was the owner of premises at 6-16 West 16th Street in New York City where it was erecting apartments. All expenses including compensation insurance were borne by Chelsea and both claimant and the other alleged Goodstein employee were paid by Chelsea. Apparently Goodstein received a fee as a consultant to oversee the various phases of construction. At most there is presented upon this appeal bnly a question of fact and since the board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence it must be affirmed. Decision affirmed, with costs to respondent-employer and carrier against appellants. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Aulisi, J.

Appeal by Chelsea Lane Apartments Company (Chelsea) and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which found claimant was its employee and affirmed an award. Appellants contend that claimant was an employee of Goodstein Building Corporation (Goodstein) in that he was hired and under the supervision of an alleged employee of Good-stein. Chelsea was the owner of premises at 6-16 West 16th Street in New York City where it was erecting apartments. All expenses including compensation insurance were borne by Chelsea and both claimant and the other alleged Goodstein employee were paid by Chelsea. Apparently Goodstein received a fee as a consultant to oversee the various phases of construction. At most there is presented upon this appeal bnly a question of fact and since the board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence it must be affirmed. Decision affirmed, with costs to respondent-employer and carrier against appellants. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 602, 271 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-mangiovi-v-goodstein-building-corp-nyappdiv-1966.