Cozzi v. Am. Stock Exch.

• Decision Date: 16 May 2019
• Docket Number: 526254
• Citation: 172 A.D.3d 1658,99 N.Y.S.3d 142
• Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Guy COZZI, Appellant, v. AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

172 A.D.3d 1658
99 N.Y.S.3d 142

In the Matter of the Claim of Guy COZZI, Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE et al., Respondents.

Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

526254

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: March 28, 2019
Decided and Entered: May 16, 2019

Guy Cozzi, Greenwich, Connecticut, appellant pro se.

Fischer Brothers, New York City (Martin Krutzel of counsel), for American Stock Exchange and another, respondents.

Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Aarons, J.

172 A.D.3d 1658

99 N.Y.S.3d 143

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed January 19, 2018, which denied claimant's application to reopen his workers' compensation claim.

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 filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits

172 A.D.3d 1659

for injuries suffered at the site. Following a September 2015 hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined that claimant was not a participant in the rescue, recovery or cleanup operations at the World Trade Center site pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 161 and, because his claim was not filed by September 11, 2003 – i.e., within two years of September 11, 2001 – it was barred as untimely. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge further found that the exception contained in Workers' Compensation Law article 8–A to the general two-year filing requirement was inapplicable.¹ On review, the Board affirmed in a February 2016 decision, and claimant applied for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The application was denied, and claimant appealed only 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 reopening of the claim. In his application, claimant asserted that, in addition to the activities related to the cleanup of the site that he raised in his initial application for benefits, he also voluntarily provided drinks to workers involved in the cleanup of the...