Opinion
2014-08-7
In the Matter of the Claim of Ney F. LIMA, Appellant, v. NEWPORT PAINTING & DECORATING et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
Law Offices of Joseph Romano, New York City (Anthony Brooks–Morgese of counsel), for appellant. William O'Brien, State Insurance Fund, White Plains (Rudolph Rosa Di Sant of counsel), for Newport Painting & Decorating and another, respondents.
Law Offices of Joseph Romano, New York City (Anthony Brooks–Morgese of counsel), for appellant. William O'Brien, State Insurance Fund, White Plains (Rudolph Rosa Di Sant of counsel), for Newport Painting & Decorating and another, respondents.
LAHTINEN, J.
Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed February 25, 2013, which, among other things, ruled that claimant did not sustain a work-related injury.
Claimant, alleging that he fell from scaffolding while painting and suffered injuries to his neck, left shoulder and lower back, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. The employer controverted the claim and, following a hearing at which a coworker testified that she was working with claimant at the time of the alleged accident and that he did not fall, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found the employer's witness to be more credible than claimant and disallowed the claim. Thereafter, the Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision and denied claimant's request to reopen the hearing to receive the testimony of an additional employee. Claimant now appeals.
We affirm. According appropriate deference to the Board's credibility determination, the record contains substantial evidence to support its decision that claimant did not sustain a workplace accident ( see Matter of Rolleri v. Mastic Beach Ambulance Co., Inc., 106 A.D.3d 1292, 1293, 967 N.Y.S.2d 139 [2013],lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 865, 973 N.Y.S.2d 582, 996 N.E.2d 501 [2013];Matter of Cicciarelli v. Westchester Health Care Corp., 86 A.D.3d 733, 734, 927 N.Y.S.2d 194 [2011] ).
We also conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying claimant's request to reopen his claim ( see Matter of Danin v. Stop & Shop, 115 A.D.3d 1077, 1078, 981 N.Y.S.2d 864 [2014];Matter of Burris v. Olcott, 95 A.D.3d 1522, 1523, 944 N.Y.S.2d 775 [2012] ).
Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs. Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, GARRY, ROSE and DEVINE, JJ., concur.