You are here: / / THE CARRIER’S APPLICATION FOR APPEAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED...

THE CARRIER’S APPLICATION FOR APPEAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE DATE WHEN THE OBJECTION WHICH IS THE BASIS OF THE APPEAL WAS MADE; THERE WAS ONLY ONE HEARING AND THE REGULATION IN EFFECT AT THE TIME ONLY ASKED “WHEN” THE OBJECTION WAS MADE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the appeal should not have been dismissed for failure to include the date when the objection upon which the appeal is based was made. Apparently there was only one hearing and the regulation in effect at the time of  the appeal application did not specifically require the date of the objection (only “when” the objection was made):

The Board found that the carrier’s response to question number 15 was not complete because it failed to specify “the date of the hearing” at which the carrier interposed its objection or exception to the ruling. “Although the Board has consistently found that listing the hearing date at which the objection or exception was made constitutes a complete response to [the temporal requirement of] question number 15” … , the regulation in effect at the time that the carrier submitted its application for review in June 2018 only required the applicant to state, as pertinent here, “when” the objection or exception was interposed; it did not then require that a date be specified … .

In reviewing the Board’s decision, we are guided by the fundamental principle of administrative law that “judicial review of an agency’s determination is limited to . . . the actual grounds that were relied upon by the agency in reaching its determination” … . Given that the carrier’s response to question number 15 provided temporal information, and in the absence of any finding by the Board that there were multiple hearings, we find that the Board’s denial of the carrier’s application for Board review on the ground it was incomplete — solely because it did not list a date of the hearing — was an abuse of discretion … . Matter of Mone v Deer Park Sand & Gravel Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 02228, Third Dept 4-9-20

 

You might also like
THE PETITION SEEKING TO TERMINATE FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, WITH THE GOAL OF FREEING THE CHILD FOR ADOPTION, AND THE CONCURRENT PERMANENCY PLAN TO RETURN THE CHILD TO THE CUSTODY OF MOTHER, HAD CONFLICTING END GOALS; THE PETITION TO TERMINATE FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD THEREFORE HAVE BEEN DIMSISSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE CHILD IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER RESIDED IN ITALY, THEREFORE NEW YORK WAS NOT THE CHILD’S “HOME STATE” AND NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION; FATHER’S APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTE SERVICE IN ITALY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
Sentences for Underlying Felony and Bail Jumping Must Be Consecutive Absent Mitigating Factors that Bear Directly on the Manner the Crime Was Committed
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED 20 POINTS FOR A CONTINUING COURSE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, PROOF OF A SECOND INSTANCE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WAS INSUFFICIENT, AN ALLEGATION IN AN INDICTMENT IS NOT, BY ITSELF, EVIDENCE THE INCIDENT OCCURRED (THIRD DEPT).
COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL TRUSTEES RELATED BACK TO THE COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST THE TRUST AND THEREFORE WERE NOT TIME-BARRED, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).
No Sound Basis for Family Court’s Determination Shared Custody Was Appropriate
THE DEATH OF A PARTY TO THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AFFECTED THE MERITS OF THE CASE; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT’S MOTION AND THE RELATED ORDER IS A NULLITY; THE APPEAL THEREFORE MUST BE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

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

A PART-TIME COLLEGE INSTRUCTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS... QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS THE OWNER OF THE SCOOTER, WHETHER DEFENDANT...