Opinion
Argued February 11, 1930
Decided March 18, 1930
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
James F. Donnelly, Edwin A. Jones and Irving W. Young, Jr., for appellant.
Hamilton Ward, Attorney-General ( E.C. Aiken of counsel), for respondent.
Although the principal business of the employer was not a hazardous employment within the enumeration of the Workmen's Compensation Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 67, § 3), the claimant-employee was a person engaged in one of the hazardous employments so enumerated, to wit: Group 2, the Care of Buildings, and hence entitled to compensation under the provisions of section 2, subdivision 4 ( Matter of Glatzl v. Stumpp, 220 N.Y. 71).
The order should be affirmed with costs.
CARDOZO, Ch. J., POUND, CRANE, LEHMAN, KELLOGG, O'BRIEN and HUBBS, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.