From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Francisco v. Oakland Golf Club

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 10, 1920
193 App. Div. 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 1920)

Opinion

November 10, 1920.

Neile F. Towner, for the appellants.

Charles D. Newton, Attorney-General [ E.C. Aiken, Deputy Attorney-General, of counsel], for the respondents.


The deceased employee was a cook in the employment of a membership corporation known as the Oakland Golf Club, which was in possession of a golf course and club house the use of which was free to all members. In the club house a restaurant was maintained on the a la carte plan for members and their guests. While the deceased was at work cooking a chicken in the kitchen of the restaurant he was fatally burned by the explosion of an alcohol stove. The club was maintained exclusively for social purposes and to provide members with opportunities to engage in the game of golf and other outdoor sports. It was supported by annual dues paid by members, and was not engaged in any business enterprise whatsoever. Even its restaurant, which was operated to promote the social activities of the club, was so conducted that its yearly disbursements for maintenance exceeded its yearly receipts. No dividends were distributed by the club to its members, nor was it within the contemplation of its organizers or members that dividends should ever be paid. It is entirely clear, therefore, that the deceased employee was not employed in a trade, business or occupation carried on by his employer for pecuniary gain within the meaning of subdivision 5 of section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Law. An award for his death, therefore, should not have been made.

The award should be reversed and the claim dismissed.

All concur.

Award reversed and claim dismissed.


Summaries of

Francisco v. Oakland Golf Club

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 10, 1920
193 App. Div. 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 1920)
Case details for

Francisco v. Oakland Golf Club

Case Details

Full title:Before STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Respondent. In the Matter of the Claim…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 10, 1920

Citations

193 App. Div. 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 1920)

Citing Cases

Finkell v. Cobleskill Agricultural Society

Business of this nature is not carried on by the society for pecuniary gain as that term is commonly…

Hall v. Georgia Milk Producers

429 ( 222 N.Y. S. 70). The same has been held true of a golf club, incorporated as a non-profit organization.…