In re Claims for Benefits under Article 18 of the Labor Law Made by Rowe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Claims for Benefits under Article 18 of the Labor Law Made by Rowe

263 A.D. 915, 32 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7351

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 263 A.D. 915 (In re Claims for Benefits under Article 18 of the Labor Law Made by Rowe) 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

In re Claims for Benefits under Article 18 of the Labor Law Made by Rowe, 263 A.D. 915, 32 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Appellant contracted with the owners of timber lands to purchase standing spruce and balsam timber. It entered into a contract with one D’Avignon to cut, peel and draw the timber to appellant’s mill. The written contract would indicate that D’Avignon was an independent contractor; however, the transaction between the parties did not follow the terms of the contract and sustains the finding made by the Appeal Board that the so-called employees of D’Avignon were in fact employees of appellant. Decision unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Commissioner. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Foster, JJ.

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

Appellant contracted with the owners of timber lands to purchase standing spruce and balsam timber. It entered into a contract with one D’Avignon to cut, peel and draw the timber to appellant’s mill. The written contract would indicate that D’Avignon was an independent contractor; however, the transaction between the parties did not follow the terms of the contract and sustains the finding made by the Appeal Board that the so-called employees of D’Avignon were in fact employees of appellant. Decision unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Commissioner. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Foster, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 915, 32 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-claims-for-benefits-under-article-18-of-the-labor-law-made-by-rowe-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack