From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Siegfreid v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 1, 1916
175 App. Div. 952 (N.Y. App. Div. 1916)

Opinion

November, 1916.


Award affirmed. All concurred, except Kellogg, P.J., dissenting in memorandum, in which Howard, J., concurred.


Apparently the boiler referred to is the ordinary heater used in houses for furnishing hot water, and has no other use. It was probably larger than that in use in a single house, as there were five apartments to which the water was to be furnished; nevertheless it is the same kind of a boiler. I do not think that the man who builds a fire in a water heater in a house is within group 22, which is "operation and repair of stationary engines and boilers * * *." The janitor simply was building the fire; there was no engine and no operation of a boiler within the meaning of the law. I favor reversal.


Summaries of

Matter of Siegfreid v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 1, 1916
175 App. Div. 952 (N.Y. App. Div. 1916)
Case details for

Matter of Siegfreid v. Goldberg

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of GEORGE SIEGFREID, for Compensation under the…

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

Date published: Nov 1, 1916

Citations

175 App. Div. 952 (N.Y. App. Div. 1916)