From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Keefer v. Boyd Whipple

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 10, 1939
257 App. Div. 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)

Opinion

May 10, 1939.

Appeal from State Industrial Board.


The claim was disallowed on the ground that the claimant was an independent contractor and not an employee. The claimant agreed to do the job of bricking up two windows. He furnished his own scaffolding and tools and all equipment except one ladder. He regulated his own hours of work with the exception that the job was to be done on a Thursday when a doctor, whose office was next door, would be out of his office. It made no difference at what hour claimant did the work. The finding that he was an independent contractor and not an employee is amply sustained by the evidence. Decision affirmed. All concur, except Hill, P.J., and Heffernan, J., who dissent upon the following ground: Claimant was a general handy man, carpenter, mason, and paper hanger. He had no shop or headquarters at which he worked. He was employed to brick up two windows in the wall of the employer's garage. The wages paid for previous repair jobs had been included in the payroll of the employer, upon which a premium was computed on the compensation policy. One of the employers testified that under the terms of employment he could have discharged claimant at any time, and before the work was completed. The employer had elected to place the claimant under compensation.


Summaries of

Matter of Keefer v. Boyd Whipple

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 10, 1939
257 App. Div. 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)
Case details for

Matter of Keefer v. Boyd Whipple

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of FRANKLIN G. KEEFER, Appellant, against BOYD…

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

Date published: May 10, 1939

Citations

257 App. Div. 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)

Citing Cases

Denman v. Many & Zanetti

Bulldozers, cranes, trucks and other mobile equipment are usually rented with the operator at a specified sum…

Burnett v. Roberts

) 283 N.W. 841; Holden v. Beebe Fuel Company (Ohio) 21 N.E.2d 874; Whitney v. Motors Company (Colo.) 102 P.2d…