Claim of Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from decision of board by the carrier contending there was no insurance coverage and in any event, failure of notice in accordance with section 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Peter and Mary Del Veechio owned a building at 371-377 Smith Street, City of Rochester, New York. In 1941 they started a business known as “ Mary’s Linen Shop ” in part of the building and took out workmen’s compensation insurance coverage. In 1945 the remainder of the building was occupied when they started a new business' known as “ Dell’s Appliance Store”. There were separate outside entrances to each store but an archway inside made access from one store to the other readily available and the record seems to infer a commingling to the extent that except for the assumed names, there was a common denomination, that is Peter and Mary Del Veechio. The claimant worked for both enterprises although he was paid by “ Dell’s Appliance Store ”. On April 21, 1952, the claimant, Anthony Del Veechio, son of the owners, fell from a scaffold and according to the employer’s report, made within a week thereafter, fractured his right arm while making some repairs to that part of the building described as “ 377 Smith Street ”. At the time of the accident the appellant carrier had issued a policy to Peter and Mary Del Veechio doing business as “ Mary’s Linen Shop ”, 371 Smith Street. Prior to making the repairs, one of the owners, Peter Del Veechio, contacted his insurance broker, told him of the work to be done and upon the occasion of his visit showed him that part of the building to be repaired and that he wanted compensation insurance. The broker in turn went to the general agent and said “We have a client that has a compensation policy on the building we carry the business liability, carry all the insurance, and he would like some compensation on the remodeling job”. He further testified “We endorsed the policy at the time we were writing the compensation, which was the Mary’s Linen Shop, to take care of this remodeling job.” He also testified that at the time “Dell’s Appliance” had no compensation insurance and that was the reason it was “ amended ” to the policy of the Linen Shop. An indorsement for the work was written by the carrier and attached to the policy of “ Mary’s Linen Shop ”. After completion of the work an audit was made and the additional cost was paid by the Del
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.