Reynar v. Village of Sloatsburg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reynar v. Village of Sloatsburg

17 A.D.3d 601, 792 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4087

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

DecidedApril 18, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 601 (Reynar v. Village of Sloatsburg) 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

Reynar v. Village of Sloatsburg, 17 A.D.3d 601, 792 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5), inter alia, to approve the settlement of an action nunc pro tunc, the Village of Sloatsburg and Lovell Safety Management Co., LLC, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated August 12, 2004, which granted that branch of the petition which was for approval of the settlement nunc pro tunc.

[602]*602Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the petitioner-respondent.

The decision whether to grant an application for approval of a settlement nunc pro tunc pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5) is directed to the discretion of the Supreme Court (see Singh v Ross, 12 AD3d 498 [2004]; Zamfino v Furman, 1 AD3d 591, 592 [2003]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in approving the petitioner’s settlement with a third party, nunc pro tunc (see Matter of Banks v National Union Ins. Co., 304 AD2d 573 [2003]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5), inter alia, to approve the settlement of an action nunc pro tunc, the Village of Sloatsburg and Lovell Safety Management Co., LLC, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated August 12, 2004, which granted that branch of the petition which was for approval of the settlement nunc pro tunc.

[602]*602Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the petitioner-respondent.

The decision whether to grant an application for approval of a settlement nunc pro tunc pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5) is directed to the discretion of the Supreme Court (see Singh v Ross, 12 AD3d 498 [2004]; Zamfino v Furman, 1 AD3d 591, 592 [2003]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in approving the petitioner’s settlement with a third party, nunc pro tunc (see Matter of Banks v National Union Ins. Co., 304 AD2d 573 [2003]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 601, 792 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynar-v-village-of-sloatsburg-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack