Johnson v. Via Taxi, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 October 2010 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Claim of Ben JOHNSON, Claimant, v. VIA TAXI, INC., Appellant, and State Insurance Fund et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
77 A.D.3d 1024
In the Matter of the Claim of Ben JOHNSON, Claimant,
v.
VIA TAXI, INC., Appellant,
and
State Insurance Fund et al., Respondents.
Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Oct. 14, 2010.
Eliot Levine & Associates, Hauppauge (John F. Clennan, Ronkonkoma, of counsel), for appellant.
Gregory J. Allen, State Insurance Fund, New York City (Katherine Mason-Horowitz of counsel), for State Insurance Fund and another, respondents.
Before: PETERS, J.P., SPAIN, MALONE JR., STEIN and EGAN JR., JJ.
EGAN, JR., J.
Appeals (1) from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed May 29, 2008, which, among other things, ruled that the employer did not have workers' compensation insurance coverage on the date of claimant's accident, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed October 6, 2009, which ruled that the uninsured employer was subject to penalties pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 26-a.
Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits arising out of an injury he sustained while working for the employer on
We affirm. Workers' Compensation Law § 93(c) authorizes SIF to refuse to insure any employer whose previous coverage by SIF was canceled due to nonpayment of a premium, until the outstanding balance on the premium is paid. Here, the employer's original policy with SIF was canceled in July 2003 based on unpaid premiums. The employer still had an outstanding balance when it reapplied for coverage in December 2006 and, in a letter dated January 16, 2007, SIF informed the employer that it could not issue a new policy. Notably, the letter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Iryanna I.
...and, therefore, we need not address counsel's application to be relieved of his assignment (see Matter of Alexander K. [Jennifer N.],77 A.D.3d at 1024, 908 N.Y.S.2d 613 [2010]; Matter of Chelsea M. [Ernest M.],68 A.D.3d 1489, 1489–1490, 890 N.Y.S.2d 362 [2009]).ORDERED that the appeals are ......
-
Castillo v. Brown
...which the penalty was calculated, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision (see generally Matter of Johnson v. Via Taxi, Inc., 77 A.D.3d 1024, 1026, 909 N.Y.S.2d 163 [2010] ). We further note that, insofar as the employers failed to raise their challenge to the constitutionality of......
-
In the Matter of Debra J. Dickerson v. Knox
...and there is no need to consider his counsel's request to be relieved of her assignment ( see Matter of Alexander K. [Jennifer N.], 77 A.D.3d at 1024, 908 N.Y.S.2d 613; Matter of Chelsea M. [Ernest M.], 68 A.D.3d 1489, 1490, 890 N.Y.S.2d 362 [2009] ). ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed,......
- In re Alexander K.