Claim of Sullivan v. Audlane Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Sullivan v. Audlane Realty Corp.

246 A.D. 872

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 246 A.D. 872 (Claim of Sullivan v. Audlane Realty Corp.) 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 Sullivan v. Audlane Realty Corp., 246 A.D. 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an award of the State Industrial Board in favor of claimant. The appellant claims that there was no insurance coverage. The premises of the employer were being remodeled and the claimant was employed in tearing out partitions and “ in the removal of debris in connection with new construction ” when he was injured. The appellant claims that the. policy excluded certain specified classes of employment, but if important the excluding indorsement to the policy was not countersigned as required. The policy did not expressly exclude the employment in which claimant was engaged. It expressly covered all industrial operations upon the premises and all repairs or alterations to the premises. (See, also, Workmen’s Comp. Law, § 54, subd. 4.) Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ.

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

Appeal from an award of the State Industrial Board in favor of claimant. The appellant claims that there was no insurance coverage. The premises of the employer were being remodeled and the claimant was employed in tearing out partitions and “ in the removal of debris in connection with new construction ” when he was injured. The appellant claims that the. policy excluded certain specified classes of employment, but if important the excluding indorsement to the policy was not countersigned as required. The policy did not expressly exclude the employment in which claimant was engaged. It expressly covered all industrial operations upon the premises and all repairs or alterations to the premises. (See, also, Workmen’s Comp. Law, § 54, subd. 4.) Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D. 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-sullivan-v-audlane-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack