21 A.D.2d 925 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1964
The sole issue — that of jurisdiction—was resolved against the appellant carrier by the board’s finding, upon substantial evidence, that the employment was in New York (Matter of Cameron v. Ellis Constr. Co., 252 N. Y. 394, 397, 399) and that the employer’s New York office controlled and .directed claimant’s activities as a salesman of welding alloys. In 1957, claimant, then and at all times thereafter a resident of Pennsylvania, was hired by an official from the employer’s New York office, after an interview at Trenton, New Jersey. This was the equivalent of “ a hiring in New York ” (Matter of Nashko v. Standard Water Proofing Co., 4 N Y 2d 199, 202) and the place of the interview was without significance, being chosen merely as a convenient “halfway” meeting point, in a public place, to which the New York official and the Pennsylvania resident journeyed. The employment was “transitory” and not at a “fixed place ” (cf. Cameron, supra, p. 398), claimant working out of his home in Pennsylvania, at the time of the accident, in a New Jersey territory of two counties. As in Nashko (supra, p. 202), there was “ control of employment from an office located in New York ” and, to some extent, apparently, “payment of out-of-State expenses”; claimant’s initial training and a subsequent advanced training course being conducted there; his orders being sent to New York and filled there; his earnings and expense accounts being paid there; his forms and literature being sent him from there; his inquiries and requests for advice and assistance being directed there; and conferences being called there. It is true that some years after the employment began and some time before claimant’s 1962 accident, there seems to have been
