Meyers v. City of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meyers v. City of Rochester

253 A.D. 852, 1 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8898

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D. 852 (Meyers v. City of Rochester) 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

Meyers v. City of Rochester, 253 A.D. 852, 1 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an award of disability compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. This award is contested upon two grounds, first, failure of notice, and second, that the claimant was not an employee of appellant but was rather the employee of one Kueehel, an independent contractor with the city. Kueehel received seven dollars and fifty cents per day from the city for services of himself and team in collecting ashes and rubbish, and worked under the direct orders of a city foreman. He paid back fifty cents per day to the city for the use of the wagon. Kueehel received an injury and the claimant took his place. Claimant was likewise subject to the direct orders of the city’s foreman, from whom he received instructions as to the manner and means of doing the work. The city foreman was present at the time of the accident. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, MeNamee, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

Appeal from an award of disability compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. This award is contested upon two grounds, first, failure of notice, and second, that the claimant was not an employee of appellant but was rather the employee of one Kueehel, an independent contractor with the city. Kueehel received seven dollars and fifty cents per day from the city for services of himself and team in collecting ashes and rubbish, and worked under the direct orders of a city foreman. He paid back fifty cents per day to the city for the use of the wagon. Kueehel received an injury and the claimant took his place. Claimant was likewise subject to the direct orders of the city’s foreman, from whom he received instructions as to the manner and means of doing the work. The city foreman was present at the time of the accident. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, MeNamee, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D. 852, 1 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyers-v-city-of-rochester-nyappdiv-1938.