From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Husted v. Hendrikson Bros., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 15, 1954
283 App. Div. 737 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)

Opinion

February 15, 1954.


In an action by an insurance carrier pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 29 Work. Comp. of the Workmen's Compensation Law, in which the injured employee, to whom the carrier had made compensation payments, is joined as a party plaintiff, the defendant, Grove, Shephard, Wilson and Kruge, Inc., appeals from an order denying its motion to dismiss the complaint as to plaintiff Husted, the employee, on the ground the complaint as to him does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. Appellant's time to answer is extended until ten days from the entry of the order hereon. Respondent Husted is not a proper or necessary party plaintiff under subdivision 2 of section 29 Work. Comp. of the Workmen's Compensation Law. ( Roecklein v. American Sugar Refining Co., 222 App. Div. 540; Boyan v. General Time Instruments Corp., 267 App. Div. 908; Wilton v. Radish, 266 App. Div. 974.) Nolan, P.J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Murphy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Husted v. Hendrikson Bros., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 15, 1954
283 App. Div. 737 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)
Case details for

Husted v. Hendrikson Bros., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM C. HUSTED, Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HENDRIKSON BROS.…

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

Date published: Feb 15, 1954

Citations

283 App. Div. 737 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)