From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Szokalski v. A–Val Architectural Metal Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec 28, 2017
156 A.D.3d 1276 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

524565

12-28-2017

In the Matter of the Claim of Roman SZOKALSKI, Claimant, v. A–VAL ARCHITECTURAL METAL CORPORATION et al., Respondents, and Arch Insurance Company, Appellant. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

Stewart, Greenblatt, Manning & Baez, Syosset (Thomas A. Lumpkin of counsel), for appellant. William O'Brien, State Insurance Fund, New York City (Mark A. Kenyon of counsel), for A–Val Architectural Metal Corporation and another, respondents. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Segall of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.


Stewart, Greenblatt, Manning & Baez, Syosset (Thomas A. Lumpkin of counsel), for appellant.

William O'Brien, State Insurance Fund, New York City (Mark A. Kenyon of counsel), for A–Val Architectural Metal Corporation and another, respondents.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Segall of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.

Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Clark, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pritzker, J.Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed June 8, 2016, which denied the application of the workers' compensation carrier to, among other things, reopen the claim.

Claimant, a construction worker for A–Val Architectural Metal Corporation, filed a workers' compensation claim for a repetitive stress injury to his back and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The case was indexed against A–Val and Chubb Indemnity Company, as the workers' compensation carrier. Thereafter, in March 2015, Arch Insurance and the State Insurance Fund were put on notice of the claim. Arch failed to appear at the subsequent hearings. By decision filed June 11, 2015, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) established the claim for repetitive stress injury to claimant's back, made awards and found Arch to be the proper carrier, resulting in Chubb Indemnity and the State Insurance Fund being discharged.

By application submitted September 25, 2015, Arch sought review of the June 11, 2015 decision and, in the alternative, requested reopening and/or a rehearing in the interest of justice. The Workers' Compensation Board declined to consider the untimely request for review. With regard to Arch's request for rehearing and reopening, the Board denied the application, finding that Arch did not set forth an excuse for failing to timely appear and present evidence challenging the claim. Arch appeals.

We affirm. " Workers' Compensation Law § 23 requires a party seeking review of a WCLJ decision to file a written application for review with the Board within 30 days of the filing of the decision" ( Matter of Passero v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 154 A.D.3d 1037, 1038, 61 N.Y.S.3d 735 [2017] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Levine v. Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 154 A.D.3d 1044, 1045, 60 N.Y.S.3d 848 [2017] ). Here, Arch's request for review of the WCLJ's decision filed June 11, 2015 was clearly made well beyond the 30–day period, and we find no abuse of discretion in the Board refusing to consider it (see Matter of Levine v. Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 154 A.D.3d at 1045–1046, 60 N.Y.S.3d 848 ; Matter of You Cai Zhang v. Tony's Marble & Granite Supply Corp., 95 A.D.3d 1510, 1511, 945 N.Y.S.2d 769 [2012] ). Arch's belated assertion that it did not receive proper notice is raised for the first time on appeal and is not preserved for our review (see Matter of Xie v. JP Morgan Chase, 150 A.D.3d 1360, 1362, 54 N.Y.S.3d 453 [2017] ). Furthermore, we find no abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to grant Arch's application for rehearing and/or reopening as Arch proffered no explanation for its failure to appear and present evidence (see Matter of Jie Cao v. Five Star Travel of N.Y. Inc., 150 A.D.3d 1507, 1508, 54 N.Y.S.3d 753 [2017] ; Matter of You Cai Zhang v. Tony's Marble & Granite Supply Corp., 95 A.D.3d at 1511, 945 N.Y.S.2d 769 ; Matter of Harris v. Phoenix Cent. School Dist., 28 A.D.3d 1051, 1052, 814 N.Y.S.2d 334 [2006] ).

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Peters, P.J., Garry, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Szokalski v. A–Val Architectural Metal Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec 28, 2017
156 A.D.3d 1276 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Szokalski v. A–Val Architectural Metal Corp.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of Roman SZOKALSKI, Claimant, v. A–VAL…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 28, 2017

Citations

156 A.D.3d 1276 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
65 N.Y.S.3d 816
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 9217

Citing Cases

Waufle v. Chittenden

1193, 1194–1195, 47 N.Y.S.3d 487 [2017] ; compareMatter of Johnson v. All Town Cent. Transp. Corp., 165…

Villagra v. Sunrise Senior Living Mgmt.

We agree with claimant that the Board applied the incorrect statutory framework in evaluating her…