Claim of Sanders v. Samsol Homes, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Sanders v. Samsol Homes, Inc.

120 A.D.2d 893, 502 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56985

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

DecidedMay 29, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 120 A.D.2d 893 (Claim of Sanders v. Samsol Homes, Inc.) 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 Sanders v. Samsol Homes, Inc., 120 A.D.2d 893, 502 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56985 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinions

— Kane, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed October 19, 1984.

Claimant was injured in a fall from a scaffold at a construction site where residence dwellings were being erected by Samsol Homes, Inc. (Samsol). The Workers’ Compensation Board has determined that an employer-employee relationship existed between Samsol and claimant. Claimant appeals, contending that he was actually employed by Andy Johnson and James Davis, two individuals who recruited him to work at the Samsol site.

The record demonstrates that claimant, along with Johnson and Davis, was one of six unskilled day laborers recruited by Samsol to carry and install necessary steel framing for the balconies at Samsol’s building sites. This work required approximately three or four hours to complete and, on each occasion their services were required, Samsol paid $300 in cash or by check to Johnson or Davis, who then divided the proceeds equally among the six workers. In the days that assistance was required, Johnson and/or Davis, at Samsol’s request, would round up the other four to carry out the day’s assignment. A representative of Samsol inspected each job to insure the progress of the work, or to start and stop work, if he deemed it necessary. Davis, in his testimony, described these activities as "supervising”. Samsol provided necessary materials and tools used on the job, as well as the scaffolding from which claimant fell. We are compelled to conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the determination of the Board on an issue of fact exclusively within its province (see, Matter of Abramson v Long Beach Mem. Hosp., 103 AD2d 866).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

— Kane, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed October 19, 1984.

Claimant was injured in a fall from a scaffold at a construction site where residence dwellings were being erected by Samsol Homes, Inc. (Samsol). The Workers’ Compensation Board has determined that an employer-employee relationship existed between Samsol and claimant. Claimant appeals, contending that he was actually employed by Andy Johnson and James Davis, two individuals who recruited him to work at the Samsol site.

The record demonstrates that claimant, along with Johnson and Davis, was one of six unskilled day laborers recruited by Samsol to carry and install necessary steel framing for the balconies at Samsol’s building sites. This work required approximately three or four hours to complete and, on each occasion their services were required, Samsol paid $300 in cash or by check to Johnson or Davis, who then divided the proceeds equally among the six workers. In the days that assistance was required, Johnson and/or Davis, at Samsol’s request, would round up the other four to carry out the day’s assignment. A representative of Samsol inspected each job to insure the progress of the work, or to start and stop work, if he deemed it necessary. Davis, in his testimony, described these activities as "supervising”. Samsol provided necessary materials and tools used on the job, as well as the scaffolding from which claimant fell. We are compelled to conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the determination of the Board on an issue of fact exclusively within its province (see, Matter of Abramson v Long Beach Mem. Hosp., 103 AD2d 866).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 893, 502 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-sanders-v-samsol-homes-inc-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack