Case Name: Before State Industrial Commission, Respondent. In the Matter of the Claim of Jennie M. Yeople, Respondent, for Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law, for the Death of Her Grandfather, Cornelius Yeople, against John B. Rose Company, Employer, and The Travelers Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1918-03-06
Citations: 182 A.D. 438
Docket Number: 
Parties: Before State Industrial Commission, Respondent. In the Matter of the Claim of Jennie M. Yeople, Respondent, for Compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, for the Death of Her Grandfather, Cornelius Yeople, against John B. Rose Company, Employer, and The Travelers Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 182
Pages: 438–441

Head Matter:
Before State Industrial Commission, Respondent. In the Matter of the Claim of Jennie M. Yeople, Respondent, for Compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, for the Death of Her Grandfather, Cornelius Yeople, against John B. Rose Company, Employer, and The Travelers Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier, Appellants.
Third Department,
March 6, 1918.
Workmen’s Compensation Law — determination of dependency — dependency of child upon grandfather — evidence.
Evidence held to establish that the claimant, whose father and mother gave her to her grandparents when she was a few days old, with whom she has lived for over fifteen years as their child, was solely dependent upon the grandfather for her support.
The question of dependency is determined by the conditions existing at the time of the accident and is not affected by the fact that claimant was at the time of the hearing earning some wages or that her mother as a matter of spite to her grandmother, with whom she lived, was offering to take care of her.
Cochrane and Lyon, JJ., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendants, John B. Rose Company and another, from so much of an award of the State Industrial Commission, entered in the office of said Commission on the 13th day of August, 1917, as grants compensation to the claimant as a dependent granddaughter of the deceased.
Amos H. Stephens [E. Clyde Sherwood and William B. Davis of counsel], for the appellants.
Merton E. Lewis, Attorney-Ceneral [E. C. Aiken, Deputy Attorney-General, of counsel], for the State Industrial Commission.

Opinion:
John M. Kellogg, P. J.:
The mother and father of the claimant gave her to the grandparents when she was a few days old and they have maintained her for over fifteen years as their child. There was some writing made giving the child to them, the terms of which do not appear. Apparently, in a separation action between the father and mother, they gave up their rights to the child to the grandparents, and two dollars and fifty cents a week by the decree or settlement was allowed the wife for her support. The separation agreement made no provision for the child. The parents have lived next door to the grandparents and the child for years, and have not reclaimed her. It would be degrading for the child to be compelled to leave the grandmother, who had taken the place of mother to her, and return to the father and mother who had abandoned her, and it would be a gross injustice to the grandmother. The fact that the mother of the child appears in this action, testifying against the child, is evidence of the animosity which she bears to the grandmother and the want of love she has for her own child. It is manifest that the child would not be at home with her father and mother and that her real home is with her grandmother. The question of dependency is determined by the conditions existing at the time of the accident and is not affected by the fact that this fifteen-year-old girl was, at the time of the hearing, earning some wages, or that the mother, as a matter of spite to the grandmother, was offering to take care of the child. At the time of the injury the child was dependent solely upon the grandfather for her support and was supported by him. I favor an affirmance.
All concurred, except Cochrane, J., dissenting in opinion, in which Lyon, J., concurred.