Matter of Griffin v. Cruikshank Co.
Opinion
Although the principal business of the employer was not a hazardous employment within the enumeration of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 67, § 3), the claimant-employee was a person engaged in one of the hazardous employments so enumerated, to wit: Group 2, the Care of Buildings, and hence entitled to compensation under the provisions of section 2, subdivision 4 (Matter of Glatzl v. Stumpp, 220 N. Y. 71).
The order should be affirmed with costs.
Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
171 N.E. 64 (Matter of Griffin v. Cruikshank Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.