Claim of Smith v. Refrigerated Food Express

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Smith v. Refrigerated Food Express

27 A.D.2d 601, 275 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2767

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 601 (Claim of Smith v. Refrigerated Food Express) 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 Smith v. Refrigerated Food Express, 27 A.D.2d 601, 275 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board that the claimant was employed by the appellant. The board found that there existed a relationship of employer-employee and the appellants contend that the claimant was an independent contractor. The claimant was the operator of a tractor-trailer and hauling articles of the employer when he was involved in an accident. There is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the finding of the board which this court on numerous occasions has referred to as a factual one. (See Matter of Denman v. Many & Zanetti, 8 A D 2d 576, affd. 8 N Y 2d 799; Matter of Williams v. Solomon, 13 A D 2d 159.) Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur with Herlihy, J.

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

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board that the claimant was employed by the appellant. The board found that there existed a relationship of employer-employee and the appellants contend that the claimant was an independent contractor. The claimant was the operator of a tractor-trailer and hauling articles of the employer when he was involved in an accident. There is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the finding of the board which this court on numerous occasions has referred to as a factual one. (See Matter of Denman v. Many & Zanetti, 8 A D 2d 576, affd. 8 N Y 2d 799; Matter of Williams v. Solomon, 13 A D 2d 159.) Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur with Herlihy, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 601, 275 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-smith-v-refrigerated-food-express-nyappdiv-1966.