Catapano v. Jow, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Catapano v. Jow, Inc.

91 A.D.3d 1018, 935 N.Y.2d 920

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 5, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 1018 (Catapano v. Jow, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Catapano v. Jow, Inc., 91 A.D.3d 1018, 935 N.Y.2d 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Malone Jr., J.

As noted in our prior decision, “[t]he Board has previously held that where the Fund has been found liable for reimbursement to the carrier under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d), the carrier waives its right to that reimbursement if it does not obtain the Fund’s consent to a settlement” (id. at 1362; see Matter of Care Diagnostic Laboratory, 2006 WL 832793, *2, 2006 NY Wrk Comp LEXIS 2612, *4 [WCB No. 2931 7021, Mar. 28, 2006]; Matter of Brigotta Farmland, 2006 WL 1064007, *2-4, 2006 NY Wrk Comp LEXIS 3343, *5-10 [WCB No. 8021 3739, Apr. 18, 2006]). Upon remittal, the Board found that this case is factually indistinguishable from its prior decisions and, therefore, treated it consistently therewith. Inasmuch as the Board’s decision represents a rational, consistent interpretation and application of the relevant statute, we will not disturb it [1019]*1019(see Workers’ Compensation Law § 29; see also Matter of Drewes v Guterl Steel, 305 AD2d 769, 770 [2003]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Levin, 263 AD2d 233, 237 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 754 [2000]).

Spain, J.E, Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Malone Jr., J.

As noted in our prior decision, “[t]he Board has previously held that where the Fund has been found liable for reimbursement to the carrier under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d), the carrier waives its right to that reimbursement if it does not obtain the Fund’s consent to a settlement” (id. at 1362; see Matter of Care Diagnostic Laboratory, 2006 WL 832793, *2, 2006 NY Wrk Comp LEXIS 2612, *4 [WCB No. 2931 7021, Mar. 28, 2006]; Matter of Brigotta Farmland, 2006 WL 1064007, *2-4, 2006 NY Wrk Comp LEXIS 3343, *5-10 [WCB No. 8021 3739, Apr. 18, 2006]). Upon remittal, the Board found that this case is factually indistinguishable from its prior decisions and, therefore, treated it consistently therewith. Inasmuch as the Board’s decision represents a rational, consistent interpretation and application of the relevant statute, we will not disturb it [1019]*1019(see Workers’ Compensation Law § 29; see also Matter of Drewes v Guterl Steel, 305 AD2d 769, 770 [2003]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Levin, 263 AD2d 233, 237 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 754 [2000]).

Spain, J.E, Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 1018, 935 N.Y.2d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catapano-v-jow-inc-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack