Case Name: In the Matter of the Claim of Frank Pestlin, Respondent, against Haxton Canning Company, Inc., et al, Respondents. Workmen's Compensation Board, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1949-07-19
Citations: 299 N.Y. 477
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Frank Pestlin, Respondent, against Haxton Canning Company, Inc., et al, Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 299
Pages: 477–495

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Claim of Frank Pestlin, Respondent, against Haxton Canning Company, Inc., et al, Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Appellant.
Argued April 12, 1949;
decided July 19, 1949.
Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Daniel Polansky, Wendell P. Brown and Boy Wiedersum of counsel), for appellant.
I. Ample evidence supported the finding of the board that claimant was an employee of Haxton Canning Company. (Taylor v. Bradley, 39 N. Y. 129; Stroher v. Elting, 97 N. Y. 102; Leggett v. Hyde, 58 N. Y. 272; Matter of Enright v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 297 N. Y. 452; Matter of Comstock v. Grastorf, 295 N. Y. 875; Matter of Romeo v. Holley Canning Co., 272 App. Div. 1092; Matter of Smothers v. D. & M. Pharmacy, 271 App. Div. 760; Matter of Ferreira v. Sutherland, 270 App. Div. 869; Matter of Maher v. Commander Taxi Corp., 227 App. Div. 832.) II. Claimant was not a farm laborer but was performing work incidental to the employer’s canning business. In any event, he was covered by the employer’s policy of compensation insurance under the provisions of group 19 of subdivision 1 of section 3 and subdivision 4 of section 54 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. (Matter of Clarke v. Roger I. Sherman, Inc., 184 App. Div. 921; Lewkowitz v. Cohen, 210 App. Div. 803; Matter of Hamilla v. Gade, 278 N. Y. 502; Matter of Miles v. Colegrove, 258 App. Div. 1014, 284 N. Y. 609; Vincent v. Taylor Bros., 180 App. Div. 818; Matter of Baum v. Welden, 294 N. Y. 464; Matter of Butterfield v. Brown, 287 N. Y. 623; Matter of Moreno v. Halstead Canning Co., 258 App. Div. 832; Matter of Adams v. Ross, 230 App. Div. 216.) III. The award of double compensation was properly made pursuant to section 14-a of the Workmen’s Compensation Law on ample evidence establishing a violation of section 131 of the Labor Law. (Matter of Sackolwitz v. Hamburg & Co., 295 N. Y. 264; Matter of Newton v. Spear & Co., 270 App. Div. 667, 296 N. Y. 918; Matter of Miller v. Saratoga Onega Bottling Co., 271 App. Div. 941; Matter of Joseph v. Sterilek Co., 260 App. Div. 969, 285 N. Y. 796; Matter of Braiter v. Addie Co., 256 App. Div. 882, 282 N. Y. 326; Matter of Warner v. Wendt’s Ice Cream Co., 256 App. Div. 1017; Matter of Kociolowicz v. Tonawanda Corrugated Box Co., 252 App. Div. 716.)
Morgan F. Bisselle and Warren C. Tucker for Utica Mutual Insurance Company, respondent.
I. Claimant was not an employee of Haxton at the time he was injured. II. Assuming, but not conceding, that claimant was an employee of Haxton at the time he was injured, he was a farm laborer and excluded from the Workmen’s Compensation Law. (Matter of Bennett v. Stoneleigh Farms, 254 App. Div. 790; Matter of Davis v. Ryan, 262 App. Div. 982, 287 N. Y. 778; Matter of Harter v. Andrus, 259 App. Div. 942; Matter of La Duke v. Martin, 261 App. Div. 344, 287 N. Y. 546.)
Frederick T. Pierson for Haxton Canning Company, Inc., respondent.
I. The employment of claimant was not illegal under section 131 of the Labor Law. (Coleman v. Bartholomew, 175 App. Div. 122; Shrader v. State, 46 N. Y. S. 2d 199; Matter of Lazarus [Corsi], 294 N. Y. 613; Matter of Tesar v. National Ventilating Co., 227 App. Div. 333.) II. Claimant was a farm laborer within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. (Matter of Davis v. Ryan, 262 App. Div. 982, 287 N. Y. 778; Matter of Bennett v. Stoneleigh Farms, 254 App. Div. 790; Matter of La Duke v. Martin, 261 App. Div. 344, 287 N. Y. 546; Matter of Harter v. Andrus, 259 App. Div. 942; Matter of Halletz v. Wiseman, 193 App. Div. 4; Ackert v. Delano, 246 App. Div. 751, 271 N. Y. 584; Brockett v. Mietz, 184 App. Div. 342.) III. Claimant was not employed by Haxton Canning Company. (Sweet v. Board of Education, 290 N. Y. 73; Kittle v. Toton of Kinderhook, 214 App. Div. 345.)

Opinion:
Desmond, J.
From the time of its original enactment (see L. 1913, ch. 816) the New York Workmen's Compensation Law has expressly excluded from its coverage: " farm laborers " (present § 2, subd. 4). None of the hundreds of amendments passed by the Legislature to extend the coverage and increase the benefits of the act, have in any way affected that exclusion. It is, therefore, beyond the power of the board or the court to grant or affirm an award to one injured when working as a farm laborer.
This injured claimant lived across the street from the farm where he was hurt. He had previously worked as a farm hand on this same farm. The day before this accident he was, as he and the farmer both testified, hired to do farm work on this farm. When injured, his work was driving a tractor which was operating, on the farm, a machine which removed beet tops from beets which had been pulled, and stacked on the ground; his arm was severed when caught and dragged into the topping machine. That such work was farm labor seems to me to be obvious, and it was farm labor whether claimant was working for the farmer Totten or for Haxton Canning Company, Inc., for whose ultimate use in its cannery the beets were grown.
Since the only question here is as to whether claimant was, Avhen injured, Avorking as a " farm laborer ", it is immaterial Avhether the arrangement betAveen the owner of the farm and the farmer was a lease, a joint venture, or one for work and labor, and likewise immaterial whether, as between the owner and the farmer, Taylor v. Bradley (39 N. Y. 129) applies.
The order should be affirmed, with costs.