Claim of Earnest v. J.P. Molyneux Studio, Ltd.Claim of Earnest v. J.P. Molyneux Studio, Ltd.
We affirm. As claimant has appealed from only the Board’s denial of her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review, the merits of the January 12, 2006 decision are not before us (see Matter of Nikolaeva v Cattaraugus County Nursing Home, 37 AD3d 969, 969 [2007]; Matter of Marks v Evergreen Country Club, 27 AD3d 914, 915 [2006]). As a result, our review is limited to whether the denial of claimant’s application for reconsideration or full Board review was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise constituted an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Nikolaeva v Cattaraugus County Nursing Home, 37 AD3d at 969; Matter of Bromley v Rich Aluminum & Vinyl Siding, Inc., 19 AD3d 895, 896 [2005]). As the Board fully considered issues raised by claimant in her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review, and claimant presented no new evidence that was not previously available, we find that the Board’s denial of her application was neither arbitrary and capricious nor an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Wariner v Associated Press, 12 AD3d 863, 864 [2004]; Matter of Graham v Pathways, Inc., 305 AD2d 830, 831 [2003], lv dismissed 1 NY3d 564 [2003]).
Peters, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.