Legal Opinion
Claim of Weygant v. Walter Kroll, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided September 20, 2001PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Carpinello, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 19, 2000, which ruled that the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge properly exercised his discretion in directing depositions of medical witnesses.
Here, as in Matter of Bathrick v New York State Dept. of Transp. (278 AD2d 704), the appeal has been rendered moot as a result of the rescission by the full Workers’ Compensation Board of the Board panel decision on appeal and we find no exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707).
Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Spain and Rose, JJ.,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hearst Corp. v. ClyneNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Claim of Bathrick v. New York State Department of TransportationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
3Cited by3 opinions
- Claim of Alund v. Malt River Brewing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Matter of Canadanovic v. Central Absorption of LIC, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- Matter of Carey v. Westchester County Dept. of Corr.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019