Braiter v. Addie Co.
In the Matter of the Claim of Samuel Braiter, Respondent, Against Addie Co., Inc., Appellant. State Industrial Board, Respondent
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
In the absence of proof that an employment certificate, vacation work permit or a certificate of age was on file in the place of claimant’s employment (Labor Law [Cons. Laws, ch. 31], §§ 131, 132), it is no defense to a claim for double compensation under section 14-a of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 67), by a claimant employed in violation of section 131 of the Labor Law, that the employer was not negligent in determining the age of the claimant at the time of employment.
(Matter of Davidowicz v. Klipstein, 272 N. Y. 543 ;
Matter of Kociolowicz v. Tonawanda Corrugated Box Co., 252 App. Div. 716 ; leave to appeal denied, 276 N. Y. 689 .)
The order should be affirmed, with costs.
Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran Finch, Rippey, Sears, Lewis and Conway, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.