
    Patrick W. Casey, Appellant, v. Frank A. Shane et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Name of Shane Construction Company, Respondents.
    
      Negligence — workmen’s compensation — action by employee of subcontractor against general contractors to recover for injuries alleged to have been occasioned through their negligence — defense that both defendants and subcontractor had secured payment of compensation, properly stricken out.
    
    
      Casey v. Shane, 221 App. Div. 660, reversed.
    (Submitted June 21, 1928;
    decided July 19, 1928.)
    Appeal from a judgment, entered December 19, 1927, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, which reversed an order of the court at a Trial Term granting plaintiff’s motion to strike out the second defense in the answer and denying defendants’ motion for a dismissal of the complaint, denied the plaintiff’s and granted the defendants’ motion. The action was to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendants in the erection of a building whereon plaintiff was employed. By the second separate defense the defendants allege that plaintiff at the time of receiving the injury complained of was in the employ of a subcontractor of defendants and that both defendants and the subcontractor had secured compensation for their employees as required by the Workmen’s Compensation Law.
    
      F. Ferris Hewitt for appellant.
    
      Harry E. Wareham for respondents.
   Judgment of Appellate Division reversed and order of Special Term affirmed, with costs in the Appellate Division and in this court on the authority of Clark v. Monarch Engineering Co. (248 N. Y. 107).

Concur: Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ. Not sitting: Crane, J.  