In re the Claim for Benefits under Article 18 of the Labor Law Made by Todd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim for Benefits under Article 18 of the Labor Law Made by Todd

260 A.D. 826, 22 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4850

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D. 826 (In re the Claim for Benefits under Article 18 of the Labor Law Made by Todd) 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 the Claim for Benefits under Article 18 of the Labor Law Made by Todd, 260 A.D. 826, 22 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which held that claimant was an employee of the appellant, The Post-Standard Company. Claimant was engaged on behalf of appellant to solicit subscriptions to a daily newspaper. No written contract was executed by the parties, but the details of ttiMr oral agreement and the method by which the work was carried out were suefi' as to justify the Board’s conclusion that claimant was an employee. There is competent evidence in the record to sustain the findings of fact upon which the Board’s conclusion was based. Decision unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Industrial Commissioner. Present — Hill, P. J., Bliss, Heffernan, Schenck and Foster, JJ.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which held that claimant was an employee of the appellant, The Post-Standard Company. Claimant was engaged on behalf of appellant to solicit subscriptions to a daily newspaper. No written contract was executed by the parties, but the details of ttiMr oral agreement and the method by which the work was carried out were suefi' as to justify the Board’s conclusion that claimant was an employee. There is competent evidence in the record to sustain the findings of fact upon which the Board’s conclusion was based. Decision unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Industrial Commissioner. Present — Hill, P. J., Bliss, Heffernan, Schenck and Foster, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D. 826, 22 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-for-benefits-under-article-18-of-the-labor-law-made-by-todd-nyappdiv-1940.