Legal Opinion
Claim of Mietlinski v. Hickman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 28, 1954PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHalpern, J.
The facts out of which this compensation controversy arises are the following:
The claimant was, in the first instance, concededly employed by Szal Brothers, a partnership consisting of Caesar and Martin Szal, to work on a garage which the partnership was building on the appellant Hickman’s farm, pursuant to an oral contract for the lump sum price of $2,875. The claimant, and one other workman employed by the Szals, were each paid $1.25 per hour or $10 per day for an eight-hour day. The Szals also worked on the job themselves. The garage contract provided for the construction of a concrete…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Claim of Kopec v. Buffalo Brake Beam-Acme Steel & Malleable Iron WorksNew York Court of Appeals · 1952
- Matter of Beach v. . VelzyNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
- Matter of Kleid v. Carr Bros.New York Court of Appeals · 1949
- Matter of Dewhurst v. SimonNew York Court of Appeals · 1946
- Claim of Craciola v. LewisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sikorski v. Burroughs Drive Apartments, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Claim of Falsey v. EastmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964
- Claim of Drayton v. First Avenue Holding Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
- Claim of the Commissioner of Taxation & Finance v. Ramapo Land Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959