Claim of Orr v. Freudenheim

226 A.D. 837, 234 N.Y.S. 856

Opinion

— Award reversed and claim dismissed, with costs against the State Industrial Board, on the ground that claimant was not in the service of an employer engaged in one of the employments covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 2, subds. 3 and 4; Id. § 3; Goldberger v. Goldberger, 200 App. Div. 190); and on the further ground that claimant was an independent contractor, (Adel v. Rubin, 210 App. Div. 499; Matter of Beach v. Velzy, 238 N. Y. 100; Ball v. Estate of Bertelle, 201 App. Div. 768.) Van Bark, P. J., Hinman, Whitmyer and Hill, JJ., concur; Hasbrouek, J., concurs on the first ground stated.

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

Claim of Orr v. Freudenheim, 226 A.D. 837, 234 N.Y.S. 856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

226 A.D. 837 (Claim of Orr v. Freudenheim) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Beach v. . Velzy
143 N.E. 805 (New York Court of Appeals, 1924)
Claim of Goldberger v. Goldberger
200 A.D. 190 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1922)
Claim of Ball v. Estate of Bertelle
201 A.D. 768 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1922)
Adel v. Rubin
210 A.D. 499 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1924)