Claim of Reid v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Reid v. Rose

281 A.D. 1062, 121 N.Y.S.2d 295

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

DecidedMay 20, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 1062 (Claim of Reid v. Rose) 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 Reid v. Rose, 281 A.D. 1062, 121 N.Y.S.2d 295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a series of decisions and awards made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board in favor of claimant and against the appellant as a noninsured employer. One of the issues involved was whether claimant was an employee or an independent contractor. This was an issue of fact and there is substantial evidence to sustain the finding of the board that claimant was an employee. Appellant was found to be an agent of an undisclosed principal, his wife, who owned the premises where claimant was working. These consisted of a two-family house and part of it was rented. Claimant was injured while repairing a picket fence. The owner was held to be engaged in a business for pecuniary gain. Decisions and awards unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ. [See 282 App. Div. 782.]

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

Appeal from a series of decisions and awards made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board in favor of claimant and against the appellant as a noninsured employer. One of the issues involved was whether claimant was an employee or an independent contractor. This was an issue of fact and there is substantial evidence to sustain the finding of the board that claimant was an employee. Appellant was found to be an agent of an undisclosed principal, his wife, who owned the premises where claimant was working. These consisted of a two-family house and part of it was rented. Claimant was injured while repairing a picket fence. The owner was held to be engaged in a business for pecuniary gain. Decisions and awards unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ. [See 282 App. Div. 782.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 1062, 121 N.Y.S.2d 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-reid-v-rose-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack