You are here: / / ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS INJURED IN FLORIDA, NEW YORK HAD SUBJECT MATTER ...

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS INJURED IN FLORIDA, NEW YORK HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.

The Third Department determined that, although claimant was injured in Florida, significant contacts with New York established subject matter jurisdiction:

“For the Board to have jurisdiction over a claim arising from a work-related injury that occurred outside New York, it must determine whether there were sufficient and significant contacts between the state and the employer to support a reasonable conclusion that the employment was to some extent sited in this state” … . To make this determination, the Board may consider various factors, including where the employee resides, where the employee was hired, the location of the employee’s employment and the employer’s offices, whether the employee was expected to return to New York after completing out-of-state work for the employer and the extent to which the employer conducted business in New York … . Upon due consideration of these relevant factors, if “it appears that the claimant’s employment had sufficient significant contacts with New York such that it may reasonably be concluded that the employment was located here, then subject matter jurisdiction exists” … .  While there is no dispute that claimant sustained her injuries while working in Florida, the record also establishes that claimant has maintained her primary and permanent residence in New York since 1983. Claimant testified that, in 2006, she was interviewed and hired at her employer’s residence located in New York and that her job duties included maintaining, and cooking for, that residence. Although claimant traveled with, and worked for, her employer in Florida for approximately eight months out of the year, claimant lived at her employer’s residence in New York for the balance of the year for five days a week while performing her job responsibilities. In addition, claimant testified that, throughout her employment, she considered New York her home. Matter of Barnett v Callaway, 2017 NY Slip Op 00366, 3rd Dept 1-19-17

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS INJURED IN FLORIDA, NEW YORK HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION)/JURISDICTION, SUBJECT MATTER (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS INJURED IN FLORIDA, NEW YORK HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION)

You might also like
THE BOARD’S CONCLUSION, BASED UPON EXPERT TESTIMONY, THAT CLAIMANT’S STROKE WAS CAUSED BY PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS AND NOT THE WORK CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF THE STROKE WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE DISTURBED ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
Good, Fact-Based Analysis of the Requirements for Adverse Possession
DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS AT SENTENCING, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT WISHED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (THIRD DEPT). ​
GROUNDANYWHERE DRIVERS, LIKE UBER DRIVERS, ARE EMPLOYEES, NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
Heroin Upon Which Defendant Overdosed in His Cell Constituted “Dangerous Contraband”—Conviction for Promoting Prison Contraband in the First Degree Was Not Against the Weight of the Evidence
A SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT SHOULD INCLUDE THE POTENTIAL FOR REHABILITATION; HERE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND EVIDENCE OF FAMILY SUPPORT WARRANTED A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (THIRD DEPT).
TERRORISM CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO INFLUENCE THE POLICY OR ACTIONS OF THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE WHEN HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO ‘COME BACK AND SHOOT THE PLACE DOWN’ (THIRD DEPT).
Electricity-Steam Generation Rate Changes Did Not Qualify as a “Rule” Under the State Administrative Procedure Act

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BIOMETRIC SCREENER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS COMPANY. COMPENSATION FOR A GUARDIAN UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IS NOT CALCULATED ACCORDING...