Claim of Harris v. Carborundum Co.

72 A.D.2d 869, 421 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14158
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 16, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 72 A.D.2d 869 (Claim of Harris v. Carborundum Co.) 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 Harris v. Carborundum Co., 72 A.D.2d 869, 421 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

Respondent Workers’ Compensation Board moved to dismiss the self-insured employer’s appeal from a decision of the board filed March 23, 1979 which ordered the employer to produce certain records pertaining to dust and noxious fumes. Motion granted, without costs, and appeal dismissed. The board’s decision clearly does not determine all of the substantive issues in the case nor does it involve a "threshold legal issue which may be dispositive of a claim against one or more parties” (Matter of McDowell v La Voy, 59 AD2d 995). Accordingly, such a decision is not appealable at this time but, in a proper case, could be reviewed upon an appeal from the board’s final determination of the claim. With respect to appellant’s objection to the board’s action in returning appellant’s notice of appeal with advice that, because its decision was nonfinal, the board would not process the appeal at that time, we agree that the question of appealability of a board decision is ultimately one for this court to pass upon and [870]*870would simply note that, where an appellant disputes the correctness of the board’s judgment regarding the appealability of a decision, the appropriate procedure is for the board to move, as in this case, to dismiss the appeal. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Main and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Claim of Garti v. Salvation Army
80 A.D.3d 1101 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Claim of Bush v. Beltrone Construction
289 A.D.2d 722 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Claim of Acunzo v. Newsday, Inc.
140 A.D.2d 817 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Claim of Hile v. Byrns Motor Express/Ryder Transportation Services, Inc.
103 A.D.2d 969 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Claim of Bock v. Burns, Van Kirk, Greene & Kafer
81 A.D.2d 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Dingfelder v. Ann's House of Beauty
79 A.D.2d 900 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Huffman v. Lake City Contracting Corp.
74 A.D.2d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Claim of Donovan v. Knickerbocker Warehousing Corp.
72 A.D.2d 870 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 A.D.2d 869, 421 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-harris-v-carborundum-co-nyappdiv-1979.