Matter of Sheridan v. . P.J. Groll Construction Company

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Sheridan v. . P.J. Groll Construction Company

112 N.E. 568, 218 N.Y. 633, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1128

New York Court of Appeals·Decided April 25, 1916·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is no substantial difference between this case and the Wilson case, decided herewith. The claimant herein was in the service of a corporation engaged in the business of owning and operating apartment houses. This business is not' a hazardous employment under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and the order of the Appellate Division herein should be reversed, with costs, and the claim dismissed upon the opinion in Matter of Wilson v. Dorflinger & Sons (218 N. Y. 84).

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Hiscooic, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, Seabury and Pound, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

There is no substantial difference between this case and the Wilson case, decided herewith. The claimant herein was in the service of a corporation engaged in the business of owning and operating apartment houses. This business is not' a hazardous employment under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and the order of the Appellate Division herein should be reversed, with costs, and the claim dismissed upon the opinion in Matter of Wilson v. Dorflinger & Sons (218 N. Y. 84).

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Hiscooic, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, Seabury and Pound, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

Matter of Sheridan v. . P.J. Groll Construction Company, 112 N.E. 568, 218 N.Y. 633, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1128 (N.Y. 1916).

Pincite

112 N.E. 568 (Matter of Sheridan v. . P.J. Groll Construction Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related