Claim of Sackolwitz v. Charles Hamburg & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Sackolwitz v. Charles Hamburg & Co.

269 A.D. 800, 55 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3906

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

DecidedMay 16, 1945

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D. 800 (Claim of Sackolwitz v. Charles Hamburg & 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 Sackolwitz v. Charles Hamburg & Co., 269 A.D. 800, 55 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant obtained employment by aid of a false statement in writing as to his identity in violation of the Penal Law (§ 939). Ho consideration of public policy or of statutory intent requires that one should be rewarded by additional compensation under such circumstances. So much of the award appealed from reversed and the claim in that respect dismissed, with costs to the State Industrial Board.

All concur, except Hill, P. J., who dissents in' the following memorandum: Violations of the Labor Law are malum prohibitum. The claimant, Leo Sackolwitz, stated when seeking employment that he was Jack, an older brother. This deceit could have been discovered by using reasonable diligence. Humerous authorities sustain the liability of the employer even if there is no negligence. [See amended decision post, p. 803.]

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

Claimant obtained employment by aid of a false statement in writing as to his identity in violation of the Penal Law (§ 939). Ho consideration of public policy or of statutory intent requires that one should be rewarded by additional compensation under such circumstances. So much of the award appealed from reversed and the claim in that respect dismissed, with costs to the State Industrial Board.

All concur, except Hill, P. J., who dissents in' the following memorandum: Violations of the Labor Law are malum prohibitum. The claimant, Leo Sackolwitz, stated when seeking employment that he was Jack, an older brother. This deceit could have been discovered by using reasonable diligence. Humerous authorities sustain the liability of the employer even if there is no negligence. [See amended decision post, p. 803.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D. 800, 55 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-sackolwitz-v-charles-hamburg-co-nyappdiv-1945.