Claim of Griffin v. Cruikshank Co. — 253 N.Y. 303

Majority

p. 303

In the Matter of the Claim of John Griffin, Respondent, against Cruikshank Co., Inc., Appellant. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

(Argued February 11, 1930;

decided March 18, 1930.)

p. 304

James F. Donnelly, Edwin A. Jones and Irving W. Young, Jr., for appellant.

Appellant was not an employer within group 13; nor was its principal business that of carrying on or conducting a hazardous employment, under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. (Westbay v. Curtis, 198 App. Div. 25 ; 232 N. Y. 555 ; Grassel v. Broadhead, 175 App. Div. 874 ; Matter of Wilson v. Dorflinger, 218 N. Y. 84 ; Bailey v. School Dist., 204 App. Div. 125 ; Hungerford v. Bonn, 183 App. Div. 818 ; Matter of Schmidt v. Berger, 221 N. Y. 26 ; Grand Rapids & I. Ry. Co. v. Doyle, 245 Fed. Rep. 792 ; San Francisco & P. S. S. Co. v. Scott, 253 Fed. Rep. 854 ; Rogers v. C., B. & Q. R. R. Co., 107 N. E. Rep. 222 ; Matter of Orleans Parish v. Murphy, 101 So. Rep. 268 ; Kendrick v. Roberts, 72 Atl. Rep. 461 ; Kovachoff v. St. John Lumber Co., 121 Pac. Rep. 801 ; Seaboard Nat. Bank v. Woesten, 48 S. W. Rep. 939 ; Krug v. City of New York, 196 App. Div. 226 ; Ryan v. City of New York, 228 N. Y. 16 ; Altz v. Leiberson, 233 N. Y. 16 .)

Hamilton Ward, Attorney-General (E. C. Aiken of counsel), for respondent.

The appellant was conducting a hazardous business which comes under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. (Westbay v. Curtis & Sanger, 232 N. Y. 555 ; Krinsky v. Ward & Gow, 193 App. Div. 557 ; 231 N. Y. 525 ; 259 U. S. 503 .)

Although the principal business of the employer was not a hazardous employment within the enumeration of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 67, § 3), the claimant-employee was a person engaged in one of the hazardous employments so enumerated, to wit: Group 2, the Care of Buildings, and hence entitled to compensation under the provisions of section 2, subdivision 4 (Matter of Glatzl v. Stumpp, 220 N. Y. 71 ).

The order should be affirmed with costs.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

Cases cited

Claim of Wilson v. C. Dorflinger & Sons 218 N. Y. 84 N.Y. 1916-04-25 p. 304
Schmidt v. Berger 221 N. Y. 26 N.Y. 1917-05-08 p. 304
Claim of Ryan v. City of New York 228 N. Y. 16 N.Y. 1920-01-20 p. 304
Altz v. Leiberson 233 N. Y. 16 N.Y. 1922-02-28 p. 304
Claim of Krinsky v. Ward & Gow 231 N. Y. 525 N.Y. 1921-04-19 p. 304
Ward & Gow v. Krinsky 259 U. S. 503 SCOTUS 1922-06-05 p. 304
Claim of Glatzl v. Stumpp 220 N. Y. 71 N.Y. 1917-01-30 p. 304