Claim of Garafolo v. Arms Hills Supermarkets

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Garafolo v. Arms Hills Supermarkets

87 A.D.2d 937, 450 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16462

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

DecidedApril 22, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 87 A.D.2d 937 (Claim of Garafolo v. Arms Hills Supermarkets) 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 Garafolo v. Arms Hills Supermarkets, 87 A.D.2d 937, 450 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 21, 1981, which denied claimant’s request for reconsideration of a prior determination of the. board filed September 21, 1978. This case was previously before this court and we affirmed the board’s disallowance of the claim on the ground that it was barred by the provisions of section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Law (74 AD2d 681). Subsequent thereto, claimant applied to the board to reconsider its decision and this request was denied on the ground that “no new evidence has been presented for consideration by the Panel”. This appeal ensued. In reviewing the board’s denial of the application for reconsideration, we are limited in our review to the question of whether the board’s action was [938]*938arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (Aiello v Rissel Constr. Corp., 37 AD2d 884). From our examination of the record and particularly the report of Dr. Ira A. Gould, the basis of the request for reconsideration, we find no new information not previously available to claimant which would render the board’s denial to reconsider an abuse of discretion, and, accordingly, its decision must be upheld (see Matter of McNamara v New Process Gear Div., Chrysler Corp., 43 AD2d 603). Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 21, 1981, which denied claimant’s request for reconsideration of a prior determination of the. board filed September 21, 1978. This case was previously before this court and we affirmed the board’s disallowance of the claim on the ground that it was barred by the provisions of section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Law (74 AD2d 681). Subsequent thereto, claimant applied to the board to reconsider its decision and this request was denied on the ground that “no new evidence has been presented for consideration by the Panel”. This appeal ensued. In reviewing the board’s denial of the application for reconsideration, we are limited in our review to the question of whether the board’s action was [938]*938arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (Aiello v Rissel Constr. Corp., 37 AD2d 884). From our examination of the record and particularly the report of Dr. Ira A. Gould, the basis of the request for reconsideration, we find no new information not previously available to claimant which would render the board’s denial to reconsider an abuse of discretion, and, accordingly, its decision must be upheld (see Matter of McNamara v New Process Gear Div., Chrysler Corp., 43 AD2d 603). Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 937, 450 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-garafolo-v-arms-hills-supermarkets-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack