Claim of Van Houte v. Marion Lumber Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Van Houte v. Marion Lumber Co.

248 A.D. 932, 290 N.Y.S. 372, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8109

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 932 (Claim of Van Houte v. Marion Lumber 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 Van Houte v. Marion Lumber Co., 248 A.D. 932, 290 N.Y.S. 372, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the carrier from an award in favor of claimant. The appellant carrier asserts that the employer named herein was not the employer of claimant and further asserts that the accident was not covered by the insurance policy of the carrier. The employer was a lumber company dealing in building supplies and doing construction work. Arnold Marsden entered into an agreement with the employer herein, wMeh is a eopartnersMp, to remodel a house on Carroll street in Palmyra, in wMeh Marsden was interested, by wMeh the employer herein was to f ornish the materials and the labor for the job. It was being supervised by Fred Crum, a foreman in the employ of the employer herein. Marsden also had a house on Hanson street, Palmyra, in wMeh was a cistern wMeh he wanted taken out. Claimant learned through a police officer that help was wanted on the job on Carroll street, went there and was hired by Crum and went to work as a carpenter. Claimant and other employees were directed by Crum to go to the Hanson street house and remove the cistern, and wMle thus engaged sustained the injuries involved in this award. The insurance policy covers operations not on the premises, includes excavations for cellars, and covers employees engaged in operations incidental to the business of the employer. 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 by the carrier from an award in favor of claimant. The appellant carrier asserts that the employer named herein was not the employer of claimant and further asserts that the accident was not covered by the insurance policy of the carrier. The employer was a lumber company dealing in building supplies and doing construction work. Arnold Marsden entered into an agreement with the employer herein, wMeh is a eopartnersMp, to remodel a house on Carroll street in Palmyra, in wMeh Marsden was interested, by wMeh the employer herein was to f ornish the materials and the labor for the job. It was being supervised by Fred Crum, a foreman in the employ of the employer herein. Marsden also had a house on Hanson street, Palmyra, in wMeh was a cistern wMeh he wanted taken out. Claimant learned through a police officer that help was wanted on the job on Carroll street, went there and was hired by Crum and went to work as a carpenter. Claimant and other employees were directed by Crum to go to the Hanson street house and remove the cistern, and wMle thus engaged sustained the injuries involved in this award. The insurance policy covers operations not on the premises, includes excavations for cellars, and covers employees engaged in operations incidental to the business of the employer. 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)

248 A.D. 932, 290 N.Y.S. 372, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-van-houte-v-marion-lumber-co-nyappdiv-1936.