Case Name: In the Matter of the Claim of William Sheridan, Respondent, v. P. J. Groll Construction Company et al., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-04-25
Citations: 218 N.Y. 633
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of William Sheridan, Respondent, v. P. J. Groll Construction Company et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 218
Pages: 633–634

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Claim of William Sheridan, Respondent, v. P. J. Groll Construction Company et al., Appellants.
Workmen’s Compensation Law — operating apartment house not hazardous within statute.
The business of owning and operating apartment houses is not a hazardous employment under the Workmen’s Compensation Law.
Matter of Sheridan v. Groll Construction Co., 171 App. Div. 958, reversed.
(Argued April 12, 1916;
decided April 25, 1916.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered November 9, 1915, affirming an award of the state workmen’s compensation commission. The claimant was employed as an elevator and switch board operator by the P. J. Groll Construction Company, who were in the business of owning and operating apartment houses. On August 28, 1914, while the claimant was operating an elevator in one of their apartment houses and was bringing the elevator from the basement to the main floor his foot was caught between the elevator and the floor, resulting in the injuries for which compensation was granted.
Bertrand L. Pettigrew and Walter L. Glenney for appellants.
Egburt E. Woodbury, Attorney-General (E. C. Aiken of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
There is no substantial difference between this case and the Wilson case, decided herewith. The claimant herein was in the service of a corporation engaged in the business of owning and operating apartment houses. This business is not' a hazardous employment under the Workmen's Compensation Law, and the order of the Appellate Division herein should be reversed, with costs, and the claim dismissed upon the opinion in Matter of Wilson v. Dorflinger & Sons (218 N. Y. 84).
Concur: Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Hiscooic, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, Seabury and Pound, JJ.
Order reversed, etc.