Case Name: In the Matter of the Claim of Alma Perry, Respondent, against Town of Cherry Valley et al., Appellants. Workmen's Compensation Board, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1954-07-14
Citations: 307 N.Y. 427
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Alma Perry, Respondent, against Town of Cherry Valley et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 307
Pages: 427–433

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Claim of Alma Perry, Respondent, against Town of Cherry Valley et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.
Argued April 21, 1954;
decided July 14, 1954.
A. E. Gold and Sterling P. Harrington for appellant.
I. The accident occurred during private work with town equipment which neither the town nor its superintendent of highways had a legal right to undertake or perform. (City of New York v. Village of Lawrence, 250 N. Y. 429; Whittaker v. Village of Franklinville, 265 N. Y. 11; Wells v. Town of Salina, 119 N. Y. 280; Matter of Brown v. Trustees, Hamptonburg School Dist., 303 N. Y. 484; Holroyd v. Town of Indian Lake, 180 N. Y. 318; Mayor v. Ray, 19 Wall. [U. S.] 468; Tooly v. Town of Wilna, 148 Misc. 611; Wenk v. City of New York, 171 N. Y. 607; Tompkins v. Pallas, 47 Misc. 309; Vilias v. Featherson, 94 App. Div. 259.) II. The award cannot stand as a matter of law. (Matter of Clarke v. Town of Russia, 283 N. Y. 272; Village of Fort Edward v. Fish, 156 N. Y. 363; Ulrich v. Terminal Operating Corp., 186 Misc. 145, 271 App. Div. 930; Seif v. City of Long Beach, 286 N. Y. 382; Kramrath v. City of Albany, 127 N. Y. 575; McDonald v. Mayor of City of N. Y., 68 N. Y. 23; Peterson v. Mayor of New York, 17 N. Y. 449; Augustine v. Town of Brant, 249 N. Y. 198; O’Donnell v. City of Syracuse, 184 N. Y. 1; Downing v. City of New York, 219 App. Div. 444, 245 N. Y. 597; Smith v. City of Rochester, 76 N. Y. 506.)
Chester J. Winslow, Jr., for claimant-respondent.
The decedent, although he may have been performing an illegal act in behalf of and at the instance of the town board of the Town of Cherry Valley at the time he was killed, was at that time an employee of the Town of Cherry Valley, New York, and, as such, comes within the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, notwithstanding the fact that such act may have been in violation of a constitutional provision. (Matter of Dann v. Town of Veteran, 254 App. Div. 462, 278 N. Y. 461; Ulrich v. Terminal Operating Corp., 186 Misc. 145, 271 App. Div. 930.)
Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Daniel Polansky, Wendell P. Brown, Roy Wiedersum and Gilbert M. Landy of counsel), for Workmen’s Compensation Board, respondent.
The award of death benefits made by the Workmen’s Compensation. Board was valid and proper. (Matter of Enright v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 297 N. Y. 452; Matter of Industrial Comr. [Siguin] v. McCarthy, 295 N. Y. 443; Matter of Ognibene v. Rochester Mfg. Co., 298 N. Y. 85; Matter of McCarthy v. Rem ington Rand, Inc., 275 App. Div. 866, 300 N. Y. 715; Matter of Motto v. Cosmopolitan Tourist Co., 278 App. Div. 597, 302 N. Y. 950; Matter of Block v. Camp Shows, Inc., 272 App. Div. 980, 297 N. Y. 1032; Matter of Lewis v. Knappen Tippetts Abbett Eng. Co., 304 N. Y. 461; Matter of Piusinski v. Transit Valley Country Club, 283 N. Y. 674; Matter of Dodge v. Wm. J. Keller, Inc., 304 N. Y. 792; Matter of Brown v. United Services for Air, Inc., 298 N. Y. 901; Matter of Burns v. Merritt Eng. Co., 302 N. Y. 131; Hemmingway v. Town of Dannemora, 269 App. Div. 221; Ulrich v. Terminal Operating Corp., 186 Misc. 145, 271 App. Div. 930; Matter of Clarke v. Town of Russia, 283 N. Y. 272; Matter of Swihura v. Horowitz, 242 N. Y. 523; Augustine v. Town of Brant, 249 N. Y. 198; Matter of O’Bryan v. Town of Jewett, 296 N. Y. 785; Matter of Dann v. Town of Veteran, 278 N. Y. 461.)

Opinion:
Dye, J.
The workmen's compensation committee of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Otsego appeal to this court by our permission in order to test the propriety of an award of compensation benefits to the widow of Earl Perry, deceased, formerly superintendent of highways of the Town of Cherry Valley.
According to the affirmed findings of fact, the decedent sustained accidental injuries resulting from his employment while working for his employer and while using town equipment in the blasting of rock on privately owned lands; the work he was performing was incidental to his employment and arose out of and in the course of his employment.
While no definitive finding of fact was made, it is undisputed that the practice of blasting of rocks on privately owned lands had been customary for at least twenty years, for which the town collected a fee. In this instance the fee was to be $5.
The sole question is whether such circumstances operated to render the Workmen's Compensation Law inapplicable. We think not. For purposes of compensation the law makes no distinction between a public and private employment. Municipal fault or liability is not at issue (N. Y. Const., art. I, § 18; Workmen's Compensation Law [L. 1913, ch. 816, as re-enacted and amd. by L. 1914, ch. 41, and L. 1922, ch. 615]). An employer's liability to pay compensation depends on the employment and the right to payment depends on a work-connected injury (Workmen's Compensation Law, § 2, subds. 7-8).
The town is a municipal corporation (Town Law, § 2) possessing only such powers and authority as the Legislature confers (Whittaker v. Village of Franklinville, 265 N. Y. 11) and as such is instituted for public purposes only (Mayor v. Ray, 19 Wall. [U. S.] 468; Wells v. Town of Salina, 119 N. Y. 280).
For purposes of compensation a municipal corporation is an employer (Workmen's Compensation Law, § 2, subd. 3) and when its employees are injured in a hazardous occupation is liable for compensation (Workmen's Compensation Law, § 3, subd. 1, groups 3-13). We have held that a town superintendent of highways is within the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Law (Matter of Dann v. Town of Veteran, 278 N. Y. 461) and this is so even though he is an officer of the town (Town Law, § 20, subd. 1, par. [b]). Here the town secured compensation for its injured employees under a mutual self-insurance plan (Workmen's Compensation Law, § 50, subd. 3-a) from which the decedent was not excluded.
The fact that the decedent was town superintendent of highways and, as such, had no authority to enter into an illegal contract (Town Law, § 32; Matter of Clarke v. Town of Russia, 283 N. Y. 272) does not prevent treating him as an employee of the town for purposes of compensation (Matter of Dann v. Town of Veteran, supra). In Matter of Clarke v. Town of Russia (supra) compensation benefits were denied the injured claimant because the contract of employment was illegal in its inception, it being contrary to public policy and void for a superintendent of highways to employ a member of the town board (Town Law, § 105; Matter of Swihura v. Horowitz, 242 N. Y. 523).
Here, according to the uncontradicted evidence, the fatal injuries were directly attributable to the employment status, the legality of which is nowhere challenged (cf. Ulrich v. Terminal Operating Corp., 186 Misc. 145, affd. 271 App. Div. 930).
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.