Claim of Ziskind v. Green Thumb Spray Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Ziskind v. Green Thumb Spray Corp.

207 A.D.2d 933, 616 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8809

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 933 (Claim of Ziskind v. Green Thumb Spray Corp.) 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 Ziskind v. Green Thumb Spray Corp., 207 A.D.2d 933, 616 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 9, 1993.

We affirm. Claimant did not appeal from the Board’s substantive decision finding no causal relationship for a claimed neck injury but instead chose to appeal only from the decision [934]*934denying reconsideration of that determination. It is well settled that the Board’s decision to deny an application for reconsideration may not be disturbed unless it was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. Here, we find no evidence that the Board’s decision is irrational, especially in the absence of any showing that there are additional facts or new information which were previously unavailable for the Board’s consideration.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Weiss 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 April 9, 1993.

We affirm. Claimant did not appeal from the Board’s substantive decision finding no causal relationship for a claimed neck injury but instead chose to appeal only from the decision [934]*934denying reconsideration of that determination. It is well settled that the Board’s decision to deny an application for reconsideration may not be disturbed unless it was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. Here, we find no evidence that the Board’s decision is irrational, especially in the absence of any showing that there are additional facts or new information which were previously unavailable for the Board’s consideration.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 933, 616 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-ziskind-v-green-thumb-spray-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack