Claim of Zoller v. Boge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Zoller v. Boge

267 A.D. 794, 45 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6256

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D. 794 (Claim of Zoller v. Boge) 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 Zoller v. Boge, 267 A.D. 794, 45 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal by claimant and his employers from a decision of the State Industrial Board making an award in claimant’s favor and against Boge and Plum as noninsured employers, and discharging the respondent, the Great American Indemnity Company, from liability under the policy issued by the company to Boge individually. There is a dispute as to whether Plum or the partnership was the employer of claimant. The Board found that he was an employee of the partnership and the evidence sustains that finding. The Board also found that the policy of insurance covered carpentry only and that at the time of claimant’s injuries he was employed and had been employed solely as a mason. The policy excluded all work except that of carpentry. The evidence sustains the determination of the State Industrial Board. Decision affirmed, without costs. All concur.

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

This is an appeal by claimant and his employers from a decision of the State Industrial Board making an award in claimant’s favor and against Boge and Plum as noninsured employers, and discharging the respondent, the Great American Indemnity Company, from liability under the policy issued by the company to Boge individually. There is a dispute as to whether Plum or the partnership was the employer of claimant. The Board found that he was an employee of the partnership and the evidence sustains that finding. The Board also found that the policy of insurance covered carpentry only and that at the time of claimant’s injuries he was employed and had been employed solely as a mason. The policy excluded all work except that of carpentry. The evidence sustains the determination of the State Industrial Board. Decision affirmed, without costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D. 794, 45 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-zoller-v-boge-nyappdiv-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack