You are here: / / CLAIMANT PROVED HE WAS EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY WHICH DID NOT HAVE WORKERS’...

CLAIMANT PROVED HE WAS EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY WHICH DID NOT HAVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND WHICH REFUSED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, GENERAL CONTRACTOR OBLIGATED TO PAY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARDS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s findings that claimant, a construction worker, was employed by an uninsured company (George Villar/Atelier) that failed to appear at the hearing and that the general contractor (Omega) was responsible for payment of the workers’ compensation awards:

​

… [C]laimant testified that he had been hired by Mullady [supervisor working for George Villar/Aletier] and worked at the construction site for about a year before the accident. Claimant explained that he identified Villar as his employer on his claim form because Mullady had informed him during his employment that Villar was the boss. Claimant testified that he witnessed Villar give cash to Mullady in order to pay claimant and others at the job site. Claimant also testified that if he had questions about the work assigned by Mullady or his supervisor, he would ask either of them or Villar, who was occasionally at the work site. According to claimant, Villar told him after the accident that he would pay the medical bills. Claimant was familiar with Villar as he had worked directly for him at various other work sites. With regard to testimony from the Omega representative, he testified that Omega performed construction management services at the construction site and obtained the construction permit for the project listing itself as the general manager. Other than indicating that Omega was paid for its services by Villar, the representative was unable to provide any further information regarding any contractors working at the construction site. Given the uncontroverted testimony of claimant, we find that the Board’s decision that claimant was employed by Atelier is supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Joseph v Atelier Consulting LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00218, Third Dept 1-11-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (CLAIMANT PROVED HE WAS EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY WHICH DID NOT HAVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND WHICH REFUSED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, GENERAL CONTRACTOR OBLIGATED TO PAY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARDS (THIRD DEPT))/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, CLAIMANT PROVED HE WAS EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY WHICH DID NOT HAVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND WHICH REFUSED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, GENERAL CONTRACTOR OBLIGATED TO PAY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARDS (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR TWO WITNESSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT EASEMENT BY NECESSITY CLAIM AND LOCATION OF EASEMENT APPURTENANT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.
Where an Injured Worker Remains Attached to the Work Force After Injury, the Measure of Benefits Is the Difference Between Actual Earnings Before and After Injury and Cannot Be Based On Evidence of What the Worker Could Be Earning
AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT BY THE UNIVERSITY AGAINST PETITIONER-STUDENT BASED UPON ANOTHER STUDENT’S (THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL’S) ALLEGATIONS SHE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED; THE UNIVERSITY’S TITLE IX GRIEVANCE POLICY PROVIDES THAT WHERE, AS HERE, THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL IS ABSENT FROM THE HEARING AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION, ANY DETERMINATION BY THE UNIVERSITY CANNOT BE BASED UPON STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL; THE DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT).
ALLEGATIONS FATHER DID NOT ABIDE BY THE VISITATION TERMS AND USED DRUGS DURING VISITATION SUPPORTED MOTHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY BASED UPON CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FATHER IS INCARCERATED FOR ASSAULTING MOTHER WHEN SHE WAS SEVEN MONTHS PREGNANT, FATHER IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER VISITATION WITH THE CHILD, WHICH NEED NOT INCLUDE CONTACT VISITATION, IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD; IT IS THE MOTHER’S BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE VISITATION WOULD BE HARMFUL (THIRD DEPT).
Application for a Full Board Review Must Be Considered by a Panel of At Least Three Members of the Workers’ Compensation Board
Defense Counsel’s Statement Defendant “Most Likely” Would Not Be Deported Based on a Guilty Plea Did Not Amount to Ineffective Assistance

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SKIN CARE SPECIALIST WORKING FOR A SKIN CARE COMPANY WITH A DISPLAY IN A BLOOMINGDALE’S... FURTIVE MOVEMENTS JUSTIFIED POLICE OFFICER’S LIMITED SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S...