Legal Opinion

Matter of Griffin v. Cruikshank Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 18, 1930PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

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.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Matter of Glatzl v. . StumppNew York Court of Appeals · 1917

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Mayor of Baltimore v. TrunkCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1937
  2. Matter of Gramlich v. Board of EducationNew York Court of Appeals · 1948
  3. Claim of Hayes v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
  4. Hewitt v. Startop Ranch, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
  5. Matter of Baum v. WeldenNew York Court of Appeals · 1945

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API