From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Miller v. Victoria Bondholders

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 23, 1965
24 A.D.2d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Opinion

December 23, 1965


By decision dated May 20, 1964 the board affirmed the decision of the Referee upon a finding that further causally related disability had not been established and closed the case. No appeal was taken from this decision as provided by section 23 Work. Comp. of the Workmen's Compensation Law. In a letter dated May 25, 1964 addressed to the chairman of the board claimant sought a re-examination of the facts developed at the hearings which culminated in the adverse result and "a reopening and an honest reconsideration of her case." On June 23, 1964 the board advised the claimant that reconsideration of its prior decision was not warranted. The appeal is from this decision. The reopening of a case such as the present one lies within the discretion of the board and is not reviewable unless the denial thereof is arbitrary and capricious. ( Matter of Szewezuk v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 19 A.D.2d 915.) We perceive no basis upon which we would be justified in disturbing the board's determination. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P.J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Miller v. Victoria Bondholders

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 23, 1965
24 A.D.2d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)
Case details for

Matter of Miller v. Victoria Bondholders

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of ELISE MILLER, Appellant, v. VICTORIA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Dec 23, 1965

Citations

24 A.D.2d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Citing Cases

Matter of Pressler v. I. Maner Manufacturing

Both orders must be affirmed. It must be noted that claimant did not appeal from the board's substantive…

Claim of De Maio v. Rockford Plumbing & Heating

We must also reject the claimant's contention that the board abused its discretion by refusing to reopen the…