Claim of Brannigan v. Town of Oyster Bay

141 A.D.2d 942, 530 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6813
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 16, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 141 A.D.2d 942 (Claim of Brannigan v. Town of Oyster Bay) 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 Brannigan v. Town of Oyster Bay, 141 A.D.2d 942, 530 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

Casey, J.

Appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed October 21, 1986 and May 8, 1987.

The employer contends that the Workers’ Compensation Board erred in discharging the Special Disability Fund due to the employer’s failure to file a claim for reimbursement of death benefits. It is the employer’s argument that since all parties, including the Board and the Special Disability Fund, treated the disability claim and the death claim as a single case until after the expiration of the two-year period within which the employer was required to seek reimbursement on the death claim (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [8] [f]), the employer’s failure to file a separate application for reim[943]*943bursement on the death claim should not result in the discharge of the Special Disability Fund. The Board’s decision must be affirmed since "claims for disability and death benefits are clearly separate and distinct assertions of rights and thus separate claims for reimbursement are required” (Matter of Molina v Wave Crest Motel, 46 AD2d 957, 958). We see nothing irrational in the Board’s requirement of strict adherence to this mandate (see, Matter of Roland v Sunmark Indus., 127 AD2d 894). The employer was well aware of the death claim and had ample opportunity to seek reimbursement within the required two-year period.

Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Special Disability Fund. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Cadme v. FOJP Serv. Corp.
2021 NY Slip Op 04525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Claim of Seminerio v. Glen Partitions, Inc.
59 A.D.3d 886 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Mazzarella v. Cutting
288 A.D.2d 784 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Claim of Mace v. Owl Wire & Cable Co.
284 A.D.2d 672 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Thousand v. Human Resources Administration
252 A.D.2d 664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 A.D.2d 942, 530 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-brannigan-v-town-of-oyster-bay-nyappdiv-1988.