The only essential difference between this case and the Wilson case, decided herewith, is that the employee who was killéd .was in the service of a corporation owning and operating a loft building. The business of owning and operating a loft building is not one of the hazardous employments embraced within the terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the claim dismissed in this case for the reasons stated in Matter of Wilson v. Dorflinger & Sons (218 N. Y. 84.)

Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Collin, Ouddeback, Hogan, Seabury and Pound, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.