Claim of Karam v. Executive Charge/Love Taxi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Karam v. Executive Charge/Love Taxi

284 A.D.2d 599, 725 N.Y.S.2d 577, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6000

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

DecidedJune 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 599 (Claim of Karam v. Executive Charge/Love Taxi) 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 Karam v. Executive Charge/Love Taxi, 284 A.D.2d 599, 725 N.Y.S.2d 577, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed November 12, 1999, which ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between claimant and Executive Charge/Love Taxi.

Upon determining that claimant was an employee of Executive Charge and, therefore, not an independent contractor, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge restored claimant’s case to the calendar for the purpose of establishing accident, notice and causal relationship, for further development of the record on the issue of possible general-special employment in regard to the interrelationship between Executive Charge and Love Taxi, and to ascertain the status of claimant’s third-party litigation. Executive Charge/Love Taxi appealed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which affirmed the finding of an employment relationship and continued the case. Under these circumstances, the Attorney General argues that the appeal to this Court must be dismissed since the Board’s decision was interlocutory and not appealable.

We agree. Our decision in Matter of Dubnoff v Feathers Sportswear (74 AD2d 989) is controlling. Therein we held: “The board’s determination of the issue of employment in this case does not create a ‘threshold legal issues’ within the meaning of Matter of McDowell v La Voy (59 AD2d 995) so as to permit review by this court prior to the board’s final determination of the claim. Indeed, permitting such an appeal would clearly be contrary to the court’s oft-stated policy of discouraging piecemeal review of the substantive issues in a compensation case [citation omitted]” (Matter of Dubnoff v Feathers Sportswear, supra, at 989; see, Matter of Salerno v Newsday, Inc., 266 AD2d 600).

Mercure, J. P., Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

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

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed November 12, 1999, which ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between claimant and Executive Charge/Love Taxi.

Upon determining that claimant was an employee of Executive Charge and, therefore, not an independent contractor, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge restored claimant’s case to the calendar for the purpose of establishing accident, notice and causal relationship, for further development of the record on the issue of possible general-special employment in regard to the interrelationship between Executive Charge and Love Taxi, and to ascertain the status of claimant’s third-party litigation. Executive Charge/Love Taxi appealed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which affirmed the finding of an employment relationship and continued the case. Under these circumstances, the Attorney General argues that the appeal to this Court must be dismissed since the Board’s decision was interlocutory and not appealable.

We agree. Our decision in Matter of Dubnoff v Feathers Sportswear (74 AD2d 989) is controlling. Therein we held: “The board’s determination of the issue of employment in this case does not create a ‘threshold legal issues’ within the meaning of Matter of McDowell v La Voy (59 AD2d 995) so as to permit review by this court prior to the board’s final determination of the claim. Indeed, permitting such an appeal would clearly be contrary to the court’s oft-stated policy of discouraging piecemeal review of the substantive issues in a compensation case [citation omitted]” (Matter of Dubnoff v Feathers Sportswear, supra, at 989; see, Matter of Salerno v Newsday, Inc., 266 AD2d 600).

Mercure, J. P., Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 599, 725 N.Y.S.2d 577, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-karam-v-executive-chargelove-taxi-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack