Cozzi v. Am. Stock Exch.
Citation | 49 N.Y.S.3d 316 (Mem),148 A.D.3d 1500 |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Decision Date | 30 March 2017 |
Parties | In the Matter of the Claim of Guy COZZI, Appellant, v. AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent. |
148 A.D.3d 1500
49 N.Y.S.3d 316 (Mem)
In the Matter of the Claim of Guy COZZI, Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE et al., Respondents.
Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
March 30, 2017.
Guy Cozzi, Greenwich, Connecticut, appellant pro se.
Fischer Brothers, New York City (Amy Levitt of counsel), for American Stock Exchange and another, respondents.
Before: GARRY, J.P., LYNCH, CLARK, MULVEY and AARONS, JJ.
LYNCH, J.
Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed May 12, 2016, which denied claimant's request for reconsideration and/or full Board review.
Claimant alleges that he was injured by inhaling dust and toxins at the World Trade Center site going back and forth to work in the days following the 2001 terrorist attack and that he fell and injured his shoulder. In 2014, claimant registered as a participant in the World Trade Center rescue, recovery and/or cleanup operations with the Workers' Compensation Board (see Workers' Compensation Law § 162 ) and thereafter filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits for injuries suffered in 2001 at the site. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) found that claimant was not a participant in the cleanup efforts at the World Trade Center site pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 161 and, therefore, he was
not entitled to the exception contained in Workers' Compensation Law article 8–A to the general two-year filing requirement. Accordingly, the WCLJ denied the claim as untimely (see Workers' Compensation Law § 28 ). The Board upheld the WCLJ's determination in a decision filed on February 5, 2016. Claimant thereafter applied for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Board denied the application in a decision filed on May 12, 2016, from which claimant now appeals.
We affirm. Inasmuch as claimant has only appealed from the decision denying his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mascali v. Town/Vill. of Harrison
...2020 decision (see Matter of Seck v. Quick Trak, 158 A.D.3d 919, 921, 71 N.Y.S.3d 649 [2018] ; Matter of Cozzi v. American Stock Exch., 148 A.D.3d 1500, 1501, 49 N.Y.S.3d 316 [2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 937, 63 N.Y.S.3d 744, 85 N.E.3d 1018 [2017] ). On his application for reconsideration......
-
Seck v. Quick Trak, 525256
...application was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise constituted an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Cozzi v. American Stock Exch., 148 A.D.3d 1500, 1501, 49 N.Y.S.3d 316 [2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 937, 63 N.Y.S.3d 744, 85 N.E.3d 1018 [2017] ; Matter of Onuoha v. BJS Club 165, 139 A.......
-
Cozzi v. Am. Stock Exch.
...from that decision. This Court affirmed, finding that the denial was not arbitrary, capricious or constituted an abuse of discretion ( 148 A.D.3d 1500, 49 N.Y.S.3d 316 [2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 937, 63 N.Y.S.3d 744, 85 N.E.3d 1018 [2017] ).In 2017, claimant applied to the Board for a r......
-
Gorbea v. Verizon N.Y. Inc.
...application was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise constituted an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Cozzi v. American Stock Exch., 148 A.D.3d 1500, 1500, 49 N.Y.S.3d 316 [2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 937, 63 N.Y.S.3d 744, 85 N.E.3d 1018 [2017] ; see Matter of Singletary v. Schiavone Cons......