Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of the Claim of JOHN GRIFFIN, Respondent, against CRUIKSHANK CO., INC., Appellant. STATE INDUSTRIAL BOARD, Respondent.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF GRIFFIN v. CRUIKSHANK CO
(Mar 18, 1930)