Skouitchi v. Chic Cloak & Suit Co.

• Citation: 230 N.Y. 296
• Decision Date: 01 March 1920
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of IRVING SKOUITCHI v. CHIC CLOAK AND SUIT COMPANY et al., Respondents. THE STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Appellant.

230 N.Y. 296

130 N.E. 299

SKOUITCHI

v.CHIC CLOAK & SUIT CO., Inc., et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 1, 1921.

Proceeding for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Irving Skouitchi, the employee, opposed by the Chic Cloak & Suit Company, Incorporated, the employer, and the General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Limited, the insurance carrier.From an order of the Appellate Division(192 App. Div. 768,183 N. Y. Supp. 321), reversing an award made by the State Industrial Commission, and dismissing the claim, the State Industrial Commission appeals.

Order of the Appellate Division modified, by providing that the claim be remitted, and not dismissed.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Charles D. Newton, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, of Albany, of counsel), for appellant.

Alfred W. Meldon, of New York City, for respondents.

HISCOCK, C. J.

Upon evidence which sustained them, findings were made by the Industrial Commission to the effect that claimant owned 10 shares of a value of $10 per share, out of 120 shares of the capital stock of a small corporation engaged in the clothing business, and was its president and treasurer; that in these capacities, however, he performed no substantial duties, the business being supervised by a general superintendent, and even the checks signed by another person; that he was ‘employed’ as manager, and as such performed services in packing and shipping and selling and delivering goods; that while he was thus engaged in his regular work he met with an accident, which caused the injuries for which compensation was sought; that his ‘average weekly wage * * * was the sum of $33.70.’

On these and other appropriate formal findings an award was made.The Appellate Division, however, took the view that the award could only be sustained under the amendment made to section 54 of the Workmen's Compensation Law(Consol. Laws, c. 67) in 1916, which permitted the insurance of ‘employers who perform labor incidental to their occupations,’ and, certain requirements of that amendment not having been complied with, it reversed the award and dismissed the claim.

We are of the opinion that the Appellate Division erred in its view that the claim could only be established by virtue of the amendment in question.In fact, it may be a debatable question whether that amendment can be applied in the case of an employer which is a corporation.Of course, a corporation itself could not be injured, or draw compensation for injuries, as provided in the Compensation Law.In its case advantage could be taken of the provision for insurance of employers only by holding that the act covered the officers and agents of the employer and permitted them to recover compensation.We refrain, however, from deciding this question at this time, because we do not regard it as being involved.

The amendment plainly was intended to cover the case of an employer who maintained his status as such, but who nevertheless did some work of the character usually performed by an employee.Such a situation would arise, for instance, in the case of a tailor who employed four or five men and did some work with them.He would remain an employer, and obviously could not become an employee of himself as an employer.If he received any compensation for injury, it would be as employer under the amendment in question.But all this would not preclude a person who was really an employee from securing compensation as such for injuries received in the course of his employment, even though he might hold a title as officer in a corporation.If he was actually employed to perform services as an employee, such as are contemplated by the Workmen's Compensation Law, there is no reason why he should not come within its benefits independent of the amendment of 1916.

A corporation is a complete entity, separate and distinguishable from its stockholders and officers, and if it sees fit to have one of the latter serve it in the capacity of an ordinary employee, we see...