Matter of Griffin v. Cruikshank Co.

171 N.E. 64, 253 N.Y. 303, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 831
New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 18, 1930·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

*305 Per Curiam.

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

Matter of Griffin v. Cruikshank Co., 171 N.E. 64, 253 N.Y. 303, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 831 (N.Y. 1930).

171 N.E. 64 (Matter of Griffin v. Cruikshank Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hewitt v. Startop Ranch, Inc.
46 A.D.2d 975 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1974)
Matter of Gramlich v. Board of Education
79 N.E.2d 437 (New York Court of Appeals, 1948)
Matter of Baum v. Welden
63 N.E.2d 59 (New York Court of Appeals, 1945)
Claim of Hayes v. City of New York
256 A.D. 111 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1939)
Mayor of Baltimore v. Trunk
190 A. 756 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1937)
Matter of Griffin v. Cruikshank Co., Inc.
173 N.E. 841 (New York Court of Appeals, 1930)