Claim of Konstantinakos v. Plaza Hotel

93 A.D.2d 927, 462 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17820
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 21, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 93 A.D.2d 927 (Claim of Konstantinakos v. Plaza Hotel) 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 Konstantinakos v. Plaza Hotel, 93 A.D.2d 927, 462 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed January 20, 1982, which determined, inter alia, that claimant’s permanent partial disability was causally related to the accident of February 8, 1969. Claimant sustained a compensable head injury in a fall on February 8,1969, during the course of employment at the Plaza Hotel. An award for partial disability was made on April 13,1970. Thereafter, claimant was “classified as a permanently partial disability” with payments to continue pending a change of circum[928]*928stances, by decision dated July 23,1973. The carrier requested a reopening on December 12, 1974, seeking apportionment of its liability when it became aware of an intervening noncompensable accident sustained by claimant on April 8,1970, while a passenger on a bus in the State of Massachusetts, and for which accident he had settled a claim against the bus company for $12,000. Evidence adduced at various hearings revealed that claimant also suffered a head injury in the bus accident and was hospitalized for approximately 18 days thereafter. His subsequent testimony, after reopening, was in conflict with testimony related to the bus accident and, in many significant areas, seriously contradictory. However, expert medical testimony presented on behalf of claimant supports the ultimate conclusion of the board, which, under established case law is not subject to review by this court (Matter of Slade v Perkins, 33 NY2d 988; Matter of Hawthorne v Peartrees, Inc., 56 AD2d 961, affd 43 NY2d 683). Although there is support for the argument that claimant’s testimony is incredible and not worthy of belief, the board is entitled to cull from the record that which it finds believable and, in so doing, as in this case, find substantial evidence to support the award (Matter ofCelli v New York Tel. Co., 61 AD2d 1063). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Claim of White v. Food
288 A.D.2d 649 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Claim of Horton
176 A.D.2d 1103 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Claim of Lewis v. Cambridge Filter Corp.
132 A.D.2d 802 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Jeffries v. Berney
108 A.D.2d 970 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Claim of McCabe v. Peconic Ambulance & Supplies, Inc.
101 A.D.2d 679 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Claim of Morgante v. Southeastern Public Service Co.
98 A.D.2d 892 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 A.D.2d 927, 462 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-konstantinakos-v-plaza-hotel-nyappdiv-1983.