Claim of Roth v. A. C. Horn Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Roth v. A. C. Horn Co.

262 A.D. 922, 28 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6493

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D. 922 (Claim of Roth v. A. C. Horn Co.) 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 Roth v. A. C. Horn Co., 262 A.D. 922, 28 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6493 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by employer and insurance carrier from a decision of the State Industrial Board awarding death benefits to the widow of a deceased employee. Decedent was employed as a traveling salesman by a firm whose office and principal place of business were in the State of New York. His employment was under a written agreement which fixed his territory in the State of Pennsylvania. While there engaged in such employment he was accidentally lolled. Under the agreement and in actual practice decedent was under the supervision and control of the employer. This was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the State Industrial Board. (Matter of Flinn v. Remington Rand, Inc., 251 App. Div. 578; affd., 277 N. Y. 641.) Award [923]*923affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Hill, P. J., Bliss, Schenek and Foster, JJ., concur; Crapser, J., dissents, and votes to reverse the award and to dismiss the claim.

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

Appeal by employer and insurance carrier from a decision of the State Industrial Board awarding death benefits to the widow of a deceased employee. Decedent was employed as a traveling salesman by a firm whose office and principal place of business were in the State of New York. His employment was under a written agreement which fixed his territory in the State of Pennsylvania. While there engaged in such employment he was accidentally lolled. Under the agreement and in actual practice decedent was under the supervision and control of the employer. This was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the State Industrial Board. (Matter of Flinn v. Remington Rand, Inc., 251 App. Div. 578; affd., 277 N. Y. 641.) Award [923]*923affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Hill, P. J., Bliss, Schenek and Foster, JJ., concur; Crapser, J., dissents, and votes to reverse the award and to dismiss the claim.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 922, 28 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-roth-v-a-c-horn-co-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack