Case Name: In the Matter of the Claim of Henry L. Sacripante, Respondent, against United Metal Spinning Co., Inc., Appellant, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent. Workmen's Compensation Board, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1948-12-29
Citations: 274 A.D. 1018
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Henry L. Sacripante, Respondent, against United Metal Spinning Co., Inc., Appellant, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 274
Pages: 1018–1018

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Claim of Henry L. Sacripante, Respondent, against United Metal Spinning Co., Inc., Appellant, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Opinion:
Appeal by employer from an award of double compensation to a sixteen-year-old claimant who suffered a partial loss of use of his right hand while operating a power press. Claimant had obtained and filed with the employer a standard employment certificate. This certificate, however, was issued on the strength of a pledge of employment which stated that claimant was to be employed as a " Helper ", doing light factory work. Section 3217 of the Education Law requires a pledge of employment as a prerequisite to the issuance of a certificate. Section 3224 of the Education Law requires that such a pledge shall show the character of the employment. The evidence discloses that had the certifying officer been apprised of the true character of the employment, no certificate would have issued, at least without further investigation. Hence, the certificate was not " issued in accordance with the provisions of the education law ". Section 131 of the Labor Law was thus violated. Furthermore, the employer failed to notify the certifying officer of the commencement of the claimant's employment in violation of subdivision 3 of section 132 of the Labor Law. In view of these violations, an award of double compensation was properly made, pursuant to section 14-a of the Workmen's Compensation Law. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board. Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Foster and Deyo, JJ., concur; Brewster, J., dissents, on the ground that the operation of the electric press was permitted to one of his years and there does not seem to be any proof to show that such work did not come under that generally described in the pledge.