You are here: / / FAILURE TO SPECIFY WHEN THE OBJECTION TO BE REVIEWED WAS MADE IN ANSWER...

FAILURE TO SPECIFY WHEN THE OBJECTION TO BE REVIEWED WAS MADE IN ANSWER TO QUESTION 15 OF THE APPLICATION JUSTIFIED THE BOARD’S REFUSING TO REVIEW IT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DATE OF THE RELEVANT HEARING WAS INDICATED ELSEWHERE IN THE APPLICATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Workers’ Compensation Board properly refused the employer’s application for review because the application did not indicate when the objection to be reviewed was made. The application indicated the objection was made at the hearing, but there were several hearings. The fact that the date of the hearing in question was indicated elsewhere in the application did affect the validity of the Board’s ruling:

The pertinent regulation, as well as the instructions in effect at the time that the employer filed its application for review, unambiguously required the employer to “specify the objection or exception that was interposed to the ruling [of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge], and when the objection or exception was interposed” … . In response to question number 15 on the application for Board review, the employer set forth the specific objection but, in answering when such objection was interposed, indicated “at the hearing on the record.” As noted by the Board, because there were multiple hearings held in this matter, we cannot say that the Board abused its discretion in deeming the employer’s response to question number 15 to be incomplete based upon its failure to specify when such objection was interposed in order to satisfy the temporal element of the regulation …. Further, the fact that the date of the hearing at which the objection or exception was allegedly interposed appeared elsewhere on the application did not obviate the requirement for the employer to provide a complete response to question number 15, as the Board was not required to deduce when the employer’s objection or exception was interposed … . Matter of Rzeznik v Town of Warwick, 2020 NY Slip Op 02702, Second Dept 5-7-20

 

You might also like
MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION WITH HER DAUGHTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTHER WAS SUCCESSFULLY CONTROLLING HER ADDICTION AND WAS MAINTAINING A FULL TIME JOB.
SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE.
REQUEST FOR NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF RESIDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, ALLOWING BOW AND ARROW HUNTING ON THEIR PROPERTY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE ELIMINATION OF POSITION WAS DONE IN BAD FAITH; NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS LAW DID NOT INVALIDATE TOWN’S ACTIONS.
THE 1896 DEED FROM THE PLAINTIFF WHICH TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY TO DEFENDANT DIOCESE WITH THE LIMITATION THAT IT BE USED AS A CHURCH CREATED A POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER WHICH TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY BACK TO THE PLAINTIFF WHEN THE PROPERTY STOPPED BEING USED AS A CHURCH IN 2015 (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Driver’s Gesture to Turn Was Proximate Cause of Collision
THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).
TRANSFER OF ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT TO A LOWER PAYING JOB WAS NOT DISCIPLINE UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND DID NOT CONSTITUTE A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION (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

APPELLANT, WHO HAD PUT UP HER OWN MONEY FOR DEFENDANT’S BAIL, WAS ENTITLED... THE PETITION SIGNATURES WERE GATHERED BEFORE THE DEADLINE SET BY THE COVID-19-RELATED...