Claim of Esposito v. Petruzzi
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Dissent
Mercure, J. P.
(dissenting). We respectfully dissent. In our view, the Workers’ Compensation Board’s construction of the seemingly synonymous terms “party” and “party in interest” to include only the employer, its carrier, an appropriate special fund, the claimant or a legal representative of any of them (see, Minkowitz, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 64, Workers’ Compensation Law § 22, at 262) is by no means irrational. We would therefore affirm the Board’s decision that pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 23, claimant’s no-fault carrier lacks standing to seek…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Arvatz v. Empire Mutual InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Claim of Roa v. American Transit InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Claim of Lotito v. Salt City PlayhouseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Claim of Wofsy v. CarAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995