Case Name: Before State Workmen's Compensation Commission, Respondent. In the Matter of the Claim of Louisa Bargey, Claimant, Respondent, for Compensation to Herself for the Death of Lyman D. Bargey, under the Workmen's Compensation Law, v. Massaro Macaroni Company, Employer, and The Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., Insurance Carrier, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-11-10
Citations: 170 A.D. 103
Docket Number: 
Parties: Before State Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Respondent. In the Matter of the Claim of Louisa Bargey, Claimant, Respondent, for Compensation to Herself for the Death of Lyman D. Bargey, under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, v. Massaro Macaroni Company, Employer, and The Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., Insurance Carrier, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 170
Pages: 103–107

Head Matter:
Before State Workmen’s Compensation Commission, Respondent. In the Matter of the Claim of Louisa Bargey, Claimant, Respondent, for Compensation to Herself for the Death of Lyman D. Bargey, under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, v. Massaro Macaroni Company, Employer, and The Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., Insurance Carrier, Appellants.
Third Department,
November 10, 1915.
Workmen’s Compensation Law — carpenter employed by the hour to make repairs by one not engaged in a hazardous business not “ employee.”
A carpenter, employed by the hour by a company engaged in manufacturing macaroni, to make repairs and improvements to one of its buildings, and not in any way connected with his employer’s business, is not an “ employee ” engaged in a hazardous business within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law.
It seems, "however, that if an employer engaged in a hazardous business uses his regular employees in doing something which may not be a hazardous employment in. itself, but the work is a part of his general employment and incident to it, injuries to such an employee may be held to have been sustained while engaged in a hazardous employment. Woodward, J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by Massaro Macaroni Company and another from an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, entered in the office of said Commission on the 30th day of April, 1915.
Bertrand L. Pettigrew and Walter L. Glenney, for the appellants.
Jeremiah F. Connor, counsel to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.
Egburt E. Woodbury, Attorney-General [E. C. Aiken, Deputy Attorney-General, of counsel], for the respondent.
Herbert J. Wilson, for the claimant, respondent.

Opinion:
Kellogg, J.:
The macaroni company was occupying a building which had been an old hotel. It purposed making 'upon the ground floor of the part of the building repaired a saloon, and to use the second and third floors in its general business. The work in changing the floors and roof was done by the intestate, under a contract by which he was to do the work and furnish the material for $500. That contract was performed by him. A part of the time he had men working with him. As the work progressed, from time to time the company would have extra work done, for which he was paid by the hour. Before the contract work was completed, extra work was contemplated of putting a partition through the saloon part of the building, thus making the saloon smaller than first intended, and using the other part, which was partitioned off from the saloon, as a machinery room for the company. The studding for the partition between the saloon and the new machinery room had been put up as extra work while the contract work was being performed. A delay occurred, perhaps to permit the building to settle, and then the deceased was requested to come on and finish the partition. He was in the saloon part, nailing lath to the studding over the door, when the accident occurred. He was a general carpenter, doing such work as he was called upon to do for different people, usually by the hour, but sometimes took jobs. He was not in the general employ of the company, but was the man it usually employed to do little odd jobs about its building. He never did any work in the macaroni business; 'his only work for the defendant was doing work upon or about its buildings. I do not think he was an employee in a business declared hazardous by the Workmen's Compensation Law. Clearly he was not engaged in the macaroni business, but his sole business was as a carpenter. The company was not carrying on the carpenter business, or doing any carpenter work for a profit; it was making repairs and improvements upon its real estate and hired a general workman for that purpose. If a man in a business not hazardous employs a carpenter to do some work upon his property, like fixing a window or a door, I do not think the person performing the work is an employee engaged in the hazardous business of structural carpentry. A judge who hires an ordinary carpenter to come to his office or house and put in a new window is not engaged in a hazardous business under the law. " Employment " is defined by subdivision 5 of section 3 of the law to include " employment only in a trade, business or occupation carried on by the employer for pecuniary gain." If the employer in the hazardous employment uses his regular employees in doing something which may not be a hazardous employment in itself, but the work is a part of his general employment and incident to it, we may well say that the employee received the injury while engaged in a hazardous employment. But where a man engages a carpenter by the hour to do some work upon his premises in the way of improvements, I cannot feel that he is engaged in the hazardous employment of structural carpentry or repair of buildings as contemplated by group 42 of section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 67; Laws of 1914, chap. 41). I, therefore, favor a reversal.
All concurred, except Woodward, J., dissenting, in opinion.