Claim of Krinsky v. Ward
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendant, Artenaas Ward, doing business under the trade name of Ward & Gow, from a decision and award of the State Industrial Commission, entered in the office of said Commission on the 16th day of February, 1920.
1Opinion of the Court
Cochrane, J.:
The employer conducts the news-stands at the various stations of the Interborough Rapid Transit Company in New York city. At such news-stands are sold periodicals and confectionery. The merchandise is collected and kept at 39 Park *558Place where it is loaded on trucks and then distributed to the different news-stands. It is not disputed that in connection with such business there are more than four “ workmen or operatives ” within the meaning of the second group 45 of section 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (as added by Laws of 1918, chap. 634). There are many more employees who…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Matter of Dose v. . Moehle Lithographic Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Claim of Spang v. Broadway Brewing & Malting Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918
3Cited by9 opinions
- Ward & Gow v. KrinskySupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Boteler v. Gardiner-Buick Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1933
- Martin v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
- Claim of Adams v. RossAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
- Miller v. Garford Laboratories, Inc.City of New York Municipal Court · 1939
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.