Claim of Koslosky v. Paul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Koslosky v. Paul

200 A.D.2d 845, 608 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 216

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 845 (Claim of Koslosky v. Paul) 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 Koslosky v. Paul, 200 A.D.2d 845, 608 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed September 3, 1992, which, inter alia, ruled that the Uninsured Employers’ Fund was entitled to reimbursement for those sums attributable to claimant’s concurrent employment on the date of his accident.

Contrary to the contention by the Special Disability Fund, the Workers’ Compensation Board did not err in concluding that under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (l) the Uninsured Employers’ Fund was entitled to reimbursement for those sums attributable to claimant’s concurrent employment on the date of his accident. The Special Disability Fund’s [846]*846remaining arguments on this issue have been considered and rejected as unpersuasive.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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 September 3, 1992, which, inter alia, ruled that the Uninsured Employers’ Fund was entitled to reimbursement for those sums attributable to claimant’s concurrent employment on the date of his accident.

Contrary to the contention by the Special Disability Fund, the Workers’ Compensation Board did not err in concluding that under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (l) the Uninsured Employers’ Fund was entitled to reimbursement for those sums attributable to claimant’s concurrent employment on the date of his accident. The Special Disability Fund’s [846]*846remaining arguments on this issue have been considered and rejected as unpersuasive.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 845, 608 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-koslosky-v-paul-nyappdiv-1994.