Rambally v. GreenbergRambally v. Greenberg
Claimant, a housekeeper, suffered a wоrk-related injury to his back in February 1995 while cleaning a hotel. He applied for workers’ compensation benefits citing “Twenty-Twenty Hotel Ser[vice],” a corporation formed after his injury, as his employer and listing Fred Greenberg as the employer or supervisor notified of his injury. Accordingly, a question arose concerning the identity of claimant‘s employer and severаl hearings were held to resolve the issue. Greenberg, who was the principal of 20-20 Drapery and Upholstery, Inc., a company which was dissolved before claimant‘s injury, was notified of the hearings but failed to appeаr. He did, however, send a letter to the Workers’ Compensation Board stating that claimant was never employed by him or any of his companies. Jurisdiсtion was established over Greenberg by an alternative method of serviсe.
At a January 2002 hearing before a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hеreinafter WCLJ), claimant testified that he was employed by Greenberg when hе injured his back while moving a file cabinet. He stated that he worked apрroximately eight
Inasmuch as Greenberg is appealing only from the Board‘s denial of his application for reconsideratiоn and/or full Board review, the merits of the underlying November 4, 2002 Board decision are not properly before us (see Matter of Ostuni v Town of Ramapo, 8 AD3d 915, 916 [2004]; Matter of Kozak v SUNY at Old Westbury, 2 AD3d 1146, 1146 [2003]). Our review is limited to determining whether the denial of Greenberg‘s application “fоr reconsideration and/or full Board review ‘was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion‘” (Matter of Kozak v SUNY at Old Westbury, supra at 1146, quoting Matter of Graham v Pathways, Inc., 305 AD2d 830, 831 [2003], lv dismissed 1 NY3d 564 [2003]; see Matter of Jean-Lubin v Home Care Servs. Ind. Living, 295 AD2d 825, 826 [2002]). In support of his application for full Board review, Greenberg simply arguеd that he did not have notice of the November 4, 2002 Board decision affirming the WCLJ‘s decision, that he had denied in December 1998 an employer-emplоyee relationship with claimant and further development of the record in that regard was necessary. Greenberg does not deny that he reсeived numerous notices scheduling hearing dates for the specific рurpose of determining the proper employer entity and opted not to appear. Nor does he present any new evidence to supplement the record. Accordingly, upon our review of the record, we cannot say that the Board‘s denial of Greenberg‘s application was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Kozak v SUNY at Old Westbury, supra at 1146).
Peters, J.P., Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.