Matter of Dunn v. University of Rochester

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Dunn v. University of Rochester

194 N.E. 856, 266 N.Y. 362, 1935 N.Y. LEXIS 1382

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 26, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 194 N.E. 856 (Matter of Dunn v. University of Rochester) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Dunn v. University of Rochester, 194 N.E. 856, 266 N.Y. 362, 1935 N.Y. LEXIS 1382 (N.Y. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The claimant’s employment was confined to the operation of a gas filling station at a regular weekly wage. The permissive operation of a service station for his own profit was not part of that employment, even though the permission may have been granted because the 'operation of a service station would be convenient, and even though such permission may have *364 induced the .claimant to accept the employment. (Cf. Huscroft v. Bennett, 7 B. W. C. C. 41.) The courts below have relied upon the decision of this court in Matter of Johnson v. Roosevelt Memorial Assn. (259 N. Y. 641). There the claimant was injured while engaged for the benefit of the employer in the work which he was employed to do, though as remuneration for his work he was entitled to its direct profits. Here the work lay outside the scope of the employment and was performed voluntarily for the benefit of the claimant and not of the employer.

The order of the Appellate Division and the award of the State Industrial Board should be reversed and the claim dismissed, with costs in all courts against the State Industrial Board.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

The claimant’s employment was confined to the operation of a gas filling station at a regular weekly wage. The permissive operation of a service station for his own profit was not part of that employment, even though the permission may have been granted because the 'operation of a service station would be convenient, and even though such permission may have *364 induced the .claimant to accept the employment. (Cf. Huscroft v. Bennett, 7 B. W. C. C. 41.) The courts below have relied upon the decision of this court in Matter of Johnson v. Roosevelt Memorial Assn. (259 N. Y. 641). There the claimant was injured while engaged for the benefit of the employer in the work which he was employed to do, though as remuneration for his work he was entitled to its direct profits. Here the work lay outside the scope of the employment and was performed voluntarily for the benefit of the claimant and not of the employer.

The order of the Appellate Division and the award of the State Industrial Board should be reversed and the claim dismissed, with costs in all courts against the State Industrial Board.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 N.E. 856, 266 N.Y. 362, 1935 N.Y. LEXIS 1382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-dunn-v-university-of-rochester-ny-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack