§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Joseph A. Terranova, Jr., Appellant,v.Lehr Construction Co. et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

Brief

9 Cited authorities

  1. Raynor v. Chrysler

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8183 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 82 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2011-11-15 In the Matter of Randy RAYNOR, Claimant, v. LANDMARK CHRYSLER et al., Appellants, et al., Respondent.Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent. Hamberger & Weiss, Rochester (Karen Darling and Ronald E. Weiss of counsel), for appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Steven C. Wu, Barbara D. Underwood and Benjamin N. Gutman of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent. CIPARICK Hamberger & Weiss, Rochester (Karen Darling and Ronald E. Weiss of counsel)

  2. Burns v. Varriale

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 7498 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 62 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Burns v Varriale (9 NY3d 207 [2007]), cited by the majority (see majority op at 4, 5), this Court was called upon to address a question entirely different from the one raised by this case.

  3. Zamora v. N.Y. Neurologic Assocs.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 3357 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 50 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2012-05-1 In the Matter of the Claim of Rocio ZAMORA, Respondent, v. NEW YORK NEUROLOGIC ASSOCIATES et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board, Appellant. Vecchione, Vecchione & Connors, Garden City Park (Michael F. Vecchione, Brooklyn, and Sean J. McKinley of counsel), for New York Neurologic Associates and another, appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Paul Groenwegen, Albany, Barbara D. Underwood, Brooklyn, and Andrew D. Bing, Albany, of counsel), for New York State

  4. Matter Kelly v. State Ins. Fund

    60 N.Y.2d 131 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 79 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[u]nder [Workers' Compensation Law § 29] petitioner was deemed to be entitled to have the costs she incurred in bringing the action, including her attorney's fees, apportioned" and "the lien . . . is subordinate to a deduction for costs and attorney's fees"

  5. Stenson v. New York State Department of Transportation

    84 A.D.3d 22 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 8 times

    No. 510870. March 31, 2011. APPEAL from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed January 27, 2010. The decision ruled that claimant was not entitled to reimbursements for certain expenses. Michael P. Daly, Manlius, for appellant. Gregory J. Allen, State Insurance Fund, Liverpool ( Susan B. Marris of counsel), for New York State Department of Transportation and another, respondents. Before: PETERS, MALONE JR., KAVANAGH and STEIN, JJ. OPINION OF THE COURT MERCURE, J.P. On this appeal, we

  6. Stenson v. N.Y. State Dep't of Transp.

    96 A.D.3d 1125 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 6 times

    2012-06-7 In the Matter of the Claim of Kai STENSON, Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent. Michael Miliano, State Insurance Fund, Liverpool (Susan B. Marris of counsel), for New York State Department of Transportation and another, appellants. Michael P. Daly, Manlius, for Kai Stenson, respondent. MERCURE Michael Miliano, State Insurance Fund, Liverpool (Susan B. Marris of counsel), for New York State Department of Transportation

  7. Matter Landgrebe v. Westchester

    57 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 21 times

    Argued June 11, 1982 Decided July 1, 1982 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( Morris N. Lissauer, Peter Schiff and Henriette Frieder of counsel), for appellant. Phyllis O'Connell for respondents. FUCHSBERG, J. In a matter of first impression in this court, we are called upon to decide whether, pursuant to section 25 (subd 4, par [a]) of the Workers' Compensation Law, an employer who has paid full wages to its

  8. Matter of Kelly

    110 Misc. 2d 356 (N.Y. Misc. 1981)   Cited 4 times
    In Matter of Kelly (110 Misc.2d 356, 366), another excess judgment case ($315,000 verdict and compensation benefits of $30,000 plus) which followed the total benefit theory, the Surrogate emphasized Castleberry as a deficiency case: "In holding that the contribution was limited to actual benefit derived, the court [Appellate Division, Second Department] was guided by the belief that it was dealing with a deficiency judgment case".

  9. Matter of Kelly v. State Insurance Fund

    94 A.D.2d 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

    May 5, 1983 Decree, Surrogate's Court, New York County (Midonick, S.), entered on August 10, 1981 and order, Surrogate's Court, New York County (Lambert, S.), entered December 11, 1981, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Lambert, S. Petitioner-respondent shall recover of respondent-appellant $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sandler, Sullivan, Ross and Asch, JJ.