Legal Opinion

Claim of the Commissioner of Taxation & Finance v. Nu-Art Advertising Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided May 19, 1936PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Brien, J.

While Charles A. Baker was employed as a plate resurfacer by the Nu-Art Advertising Company in September, 1931, he contracted benzol poisoning, which is an occupational disease enumerated in section 3, subdivision 2, of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 67). He became disabled in June, 1932, as a result of that disease and died in January, 1933. He had ceased to be an employee of Nu-Art in November, 1931, but became a partner in the firm of Parazin Printing Plate Company for which he performed the same kind of work. On the dates of his disablement and death he. was not employed…

2Cited by16 opinions

  1. Department of Labor & Industries v. FankhauserWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Enyard v. Consolidated UnderwritersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1965
  3. Glenn v. Columbia Silica Sand Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1960
  4. Claim of Polifroni v. Delhi Steel Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
  5. Walsh v. KotlerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956

11 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