Appeal by the carrier from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board denying an application to reopen the claim on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Prior to September 10, 1958 appellant, the State Insurance Fund, had issued a workmen's compensation insurance policy to L J Painting Corp., a painting contractor, with offices at 4046 Broadway, New York City. On that date and while the policy was in force, claimant sustained what has been found to have been an industrial accident. The employee's claim for compensation certified the named corporate insured as claimant's employer as did the employer's report of injury and the filed wage statement, both of which were executed by its president. Without awaiting an award, appellant began the payment of compensation to claimant and so notified the board. On January 6, 1959 it suspended the payments on the basis of a medical report dated December 23, 1958 and at a hearing held on March 6, 1959 raised the issue of causally related disability. The claim as thus controverted came on for hearing on June 30, 1960 at which time the carrier raised the further question of the existence of employer-employee relationship between claimant and the insured and brought to the notice of the Referee information allegedly discovered during the course of a routine audit of its policyholder's records conducted on or about June 20, 1960. The Referee proceeded to take proof on the subject of causality, found in favor of claimant and made an award accordingly. At the same time he summarily disposed of the additional question presented with the observation "that the carrier might be guilty of laches in raising that issue of employer-employee relationship." The carrier applied to the board for a review of the Referee's decision and moved upon the ground of newly discovered evidence for the rescission of the award and the restoration of the claim to the Referee's Calendar for a hearing. In support of the application appellant submitted the affidavit of its auditor which stated that his inspection disclosed the intermural operation of two similar painting contracting businesses, one conducted by the corporate policyholder and the other by its president and principal stockholder in his individual capacity as an uninsured employer, and the existence of separately kept payroll and other records, incompatible with the integrity of the filed reports which alleged that claimant was employed by the insured at the time of his injury and in part provided the basis for the award. On this uncontroverted proof we think that the board should have afforded the carrier an opportunity to develop the record in this respect and that its denial of the motion which in the circumstances cannot be said untimely to have been made, was unwarranted. ( Matter of Lapinsky v. Ardom Bake Shop, 9 A.D.2d 793; Matter of Barrow v. Loon Lake Hotel, 3 A.D.2d 783; Matter of Lawrence v. Meyer-Garry, Inc., 278 App. Div. 990.) Decision reversed and the claim remitted for further proceedings, with costs to appellant against the Workmen's Compensation Board. Bergan, P.J., Coon, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.