Francis v. Jewelry Box Corp. of Am.
| Decision Date | 28 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | 518343 |
| Citation | 128 A.D.3d 1292,13 N.Y.S.3d 252,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04538 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Claim of Neville FRANCIS, Appellant, v. JEWELRY BOX CORPORATION OF AMERICA et al., Respondents, and Special Fund for Reopened Cases, Respondent. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
128 A.D.3d 1292
13 N.Y.S.3d 252
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04538
In the Matter of the Claim of Neville FRANCIS, Appellant
v.
JEWELRY BOX CORPORATION OF AMERICA et al., Respondents
and
Special Fund for Reopened Cases, Respondent.
Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
518343
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 28, 2015.
Neville Francis, New York City, appellant pro se.
Cherry, Edson & Kelly LLP, Carle Place (David W. Faber of counsel), for Jewelry Box Corporation of America and another, respondents.
Steven M. Licht, Special Funds Conservation Committee, Albany (Jill B. Singer of counsel), for Special Fund for Reopened Cases, respondent.
Before: McCARTHY, J.P., EGAN JR., DEVINE and CLARK, JJ.
Opinion
McCARTHY, J.P.
Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed December 24, 2013, which denied claimant's application to reopen his workers' compensation claim.
As the result of a work-related injury to claimant's right hand in 1987, claimant was
classified as having a permanent partial disability and awarded workers' compensation benefits. In 1993, the Workers' Compensation Board approved a lump-sum nonschedule adjustment pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 15(5–b) in the amount of $54,600, and the case was closed. Claimant filed several applications to reopen the claim that were denied by the Board. A 2010 denial of such an application on the ground that claimant did not demonstrate a change in condition not contemplated at the time of the original settlement was subsequently affirmed by this Court (95 A.D.3d 1515, 945 N.Y.S.2d 767 [2012] ). In 2012, claimant filed another application to reopen the claim that was also denied by the Board, and claimant now appeals.
We affirm. As in the matter previously before this Court,
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kadyorios v. Kirton
-
Phillips v. Milbrook Distrib. Servs.
... ... result from work-related accidents occurring only on or after March 13, 2007 (see Matter of Francis v. Jewelry Box Corp. of Am., 128 A.D.3d 1292, 1293, 13 N.Y.S.3d 252 [2015], lv dismissed 26 N.Y.3d ... ...
-
Yi Sun v. State Ins. Fund
... ... Partnership, 188 A.D.3d 1395, 1397, 135 N.Y.S.3d 196 [2020] ; Matter of Francis v. Jewelry Box Corp. of Am., 128 A.D.3d 1292, 12921293, 13 N.Y.S.3d 252 [2015], lv dismissed 26 ... ...
-
MacKenzie v. Seiden, 517960
...that they were exempt from disclosure under Civil Rights Law § 50–b (1) and Public Officers' Law § 87(2)(a). Petitioner now appeals.128 A.D.3d 1292We have undertaken an extensive review of the documents at issue and we agree with Supreme Court that they identify the victims of the sex crime......