Sweeny v. Wait

¶1Judgment and order reversed upon the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs, upon the ground that the defendant and her husband were coemployers of the plaintiff; that the accident arose out of and in the course of her employment; that the compensation insurance secured by the husband covered the plaintiff as one of the household servants (Matter of Lipschitz v. Hotel Charles, 226 App. Div. 839; affd., 252 N. Y. 518); and that no issue of fact was tendered by the evidence of the plaintiff that she did not see the notice required to be posted as *876against the positive evidence that notice was posted. Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman and Hill, JJ., concur; Rhodes and Crapser, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.