Case ID: ny_253/html/0303-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      \n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Claim of John Griffin, Respondent, against Cruikshank Co., Inc., Appellant. State Industrial Board, Respondent.
    (Argued February 11, 1930;
    decided March 18, 1930.)
    
      
      James F. Donnelly, Edwin A. Jones and Irving W. Young, Jr., for appellant.
    Appellant was not an employer within group 13; nor was its principal business that of carrying on or conducting a hazardous employment, under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. (Westbay v. Curtis, 198 App. Div. 25; 232 N. Y. 555; Grassel v. Broadhead, 175 App. Div. 874; Matter of Wilson v. Dorflinger, 218 N. Y. 84; Bailey v. School Dist., 204 App. Div. 125; Hungerford v. Bonn, 183 App. Div. 818; Matter of Schmidt v. Berger, 221 N. Y. 26; Grand Rapids & I. Ry. Co. v. Doyle, 245 Fed. Rep. 792; San Francisco & P. S. S. Co. v. Scott, 253 Fed. Rep. 854; Rogers v. C., B. & Q. R. R. Co., 107 N. E. Rep. 222; Matter of Orleans Parish v. Murphy, 101 So. Rep. 268; Kendrick v. Roberts, 72 Atl. Rep. 461; Kovachoff v. St. John Lumber Co., 121 Pac. Rep. 801; Seaboard Nat. Bank v. Woesten, 48 S. W. Rep. 939; Krug v. City of New York, 196 App. Div. 226; Ryan v. City of New York, 228 N. Y. 16; Altz v. Leiberson, 233 N. Y. 16.)
    
      Hamilton Ward, Attorney-General (E. C. Aiken of counsel), for respondent.
    The appellant was conducting a hazardous business which comes under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. (Westbay v. Curtis & Sanger, 232 N. Y. 555; Krinsky v. Ward & Gow, 193 App. Div. 557; 231 N. Y. 525; 259 U. S. 503.)
   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.