Claim of Anderson v. Lorentz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Anderson v. Lorentz

114 A.D.2d 578, 494 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53278

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 A.D.2d 578 (Claim of Anderson v. Lorentz) 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

Claim of Anderson v. Lorentz, 114 A.D.2d 578, 494 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53278 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed November 1, 1984.

The sole issue in this case is whether the employer and its insurance carrier timely filed a notice of right to reimbursement by the Special Disability Fund with the Workers’ Compensation Board pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (f). The Board found, as matters of fact, that the employer and carrier timely filed the notice, that the Board’s copy was missing and that the late filing, which occurred after the last date for filing, was simply to replace the missing copy. Resolution of such questions of fact is within the province of the Board. Here, the decision is supported by ample testimonial and documentary evidence in the record.

Decision affirmed, with costs to the employer and its insurance carrier. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed November 1, 1984.

The sole issue in this case is whether the employer and its insurance carrier timely filed a notice of right to reimbursement by the Special Disability Fund with the Workers’ Compensation Board pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (f). The Board found, as matters of fact, that the employer and carrier timely filed the notice, that the Board’s copy was missing and that the late filing, which occurred after the last date for filing, was simply to replace the missing copy. Resolution of such questions of fact is within the province of the Board. Here, the decision is supported by ample testimonial and documentary evidence in the record.

Decision affirmed, with costs to the employer and its insurance carrier. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 578, 494 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-anderson-v-lorentz-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack