disallowance claim in New York

2022Thus, as "the general[ly] accepted meaning of [the statutory] terms" supports the Board's conclusion that the exception to the time limits set forth in Workers' Compensation Law § 28 did not apply to claimant's death benefits claim, the disallowance of that claim will be upheld ( Matter of Williams v City of New York , 66 AD3d at 1206 ; accord Matter of Regan v City of Hornell Police Dept. , 124 AD3d 994 , 995 [3d Dept 2015]).

2020Footnote 2: In arguing that the disallowance of the claim and closing of the case was proper, the employer's reliance on Matter of Keller v Cumberland Farms (178 AD3d at 1262) and Matter of Porcelli v PMA Assoc. ( 64 AD3d at 1059 ) is misplaced since those decisions are distinguishable in that they did not address the findings of prima facie medical evidence and the WCLJs in those cases had established the claims.

2018Auth. , 148 AD3d 1498 , 1499 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Novak v St.

1998Were we to review them, we would find, from the totality of the record, that the trial court properly followed the protocols required by Batson v Kentucky ( 476 US 79 ), and correctly concluded that the reasons provided by defense counsel for exercising a peremptory challenge were pretextual (see, People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350 , affd 500 US 352 ; People v Warwick, 239 AD2d 124 , lv denied 90 NY2d 865 ).

1998Were we to review them, we would find, from the totality of the record, that the trial court properly followed the protocols required by Batson v Kentucky ( 476 US 79 ), and correctly concluded that the reasons provided by defense counsel for exercising a peremptory challenge were pretextual (see, People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350 , affd 500 US 352 ; People v Warwick, 239 AD2d 124 , lv denied 90 NY2d 865 ).

1998Were we to review them, we would find, from the totality of the record, that the trial court properly followed the protocols required by Batson v Kentucky ( 476 US 79 ), and correctly concluded that the reasons provided by defense counsel for exercising a peremptory challenge were pretextual (see, People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350 , affd 500 US 352 ; People v Warwick, 239 AD2d 124 , lv denied 90 NY2d 865 ).

1998Were we to review them, we would find, from the totality of the record, that the trial court properly followed the protocols required by Batson v Kentucky ( 476 US 79 ), and correctly concluded that the reasons provided by defense counsel for exercising a peremptory challenge were pretextual (see, People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350 , affd 500 US 352 ; People v Warwick, 239 AD2d 124 , lv denied 90 NY2d 865 ).

1996Substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination, after an administrative hearing, that there was no medical necessity or sufficient documentation to justify petitioner’s ordering sample claim number 148, a test for lead toxicity, and that petitioner was thus in violation of 18 NYCRR 515.2 (b) (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 230).

1994Co., 344 US 293 ; Matter of Transit Cas.

1982This case was previously before this court and we affirmed the board’s disallowance of the claim on the ground that it was barred by the provisions of section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Law ( 74 AD2d 681 ).

1981Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the board’s disallowance of the claim, and its decision should not be disturbed (cf. Matter of Sanderson v Curley, 65 AD2d 641 ).

1981In so ruling, we note in conclusion that Matter of Schuren v Wolfson ( 30 NY2d 90 ) and Matter of McCormick v Green Bus Lines ( 29 NY2d 246 ), both relied upon by claimant, do not require a contrary result.

1981In so ruling, we note in conclusion that Matter of Schuren v Wolfson ( 30 NY2d 90 ) and Matter of McCormick v Green Bus Lines ( 29 NY2d 246 ), both relied upon by claimant, do not require a contrary result.

1966P. v. Alabama ( 357 U. S. 449 ) as support for this argument is misplaced; there, the disallowance of a State requirement of membership disclosure, as applied to the N. A. A. C.

1966In a case somewhat similar to this, a fatal accident occurred when decedent’s automobile left the pavement, struck an island and then crashed into a tree; and we affirmed the board’s disallowance of the claim upon its finding that the accident was due solely to decedent’s intoxication; and in our memorandum decision we said: “ The proof of intoxication considered with the manner in which the accident happened constitutes the substantial evidence required to overcome the presumption found in section 21 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law that the accident did not result solely from the intoxicati

1964That condition is met here and respondent’s objection to the disallowance of his claim is sustained (Rhatigan v. Curry, 191 Misc. 3 ; MacLean v. Edenbaum, 6 Misc 2d 933 ; Matter of Gottheimer, 9 Misc 2d 489 ; Jacobs v. Hochstadt, 23 Misc 2d 803 ; Truesell v. Kostiw, 35 Misc 2d 60 ).

1964That condition is met here and respondent’s objection to the disallowance of his claim is sustained (Rhatigan v. Curry, 191 Misc. 3 ; MacLean v. Edenbaum, 6 Misc 2d 933 ; Matter of Gottheimer, 9 Misc 2d 489 ; Jacobs v. Hochstadt, 23 Misc 2d 803 ; Truesell v. Kostiw, 35 Misc 2d 60 ).

1964That condition is met here and respondent’s objection to the disallowance of his claim is sustained (Rhatigan v. Curry, 191 Misc. 3 ; MacLean v. Edenbaum, 6 Misc 2d 933 ; Matter of Gottheimer, 9 Misc 2d 489 ; Jacobs v. Hochstadt, 23 Misc 2d 803 ; Truesell v. Kostiw, 35 Misc 2d 60 ).

1964As mentioned in Jacobs v. Hochstadt (supra) and indicated in some of the other cited cases the statute is somewhat ambiguous in respect of the time limitation upon the bringing of an action or proceeding thereunder.

1964That condition is met here and respondent’s objection to the disallowance of his claim is sustained (Rhatigan v. Curry, 191 Misc. 3 ; MacLean v. Edenbaum, 6 Misc 2d 933 ; Matter of Gottheimer, 9 Misc 2d 489 ; Jacobs v. Hochstadt, 23 Misc 2d 803 ; Truesell v. Kostiw, 35 Misc 2d 60 ).

1964That condition is met here and respondent’s objection to the disallowance of his claim is sustained (Rhatigan v. Curry, 191 Misc. 3 ; MacLean v. Edenbaum, 6 Misc 2d 933 ; Matter of Gottheimer, 9 Misc 2d 489 ; Jacobs v. Hochstadt, 23 Misc 2d 803 ; Truesell v. Kostiw, 35 Misc 2d 60 ).

1957After hearing, this court held (Matter of Makowski, 8 Misc 2d 277) that the representative had properly disallowed the claim since, on the admitted facts, the incompetent daughter had an estate sufficient to satisfy the claim and that the State was required to satisfy its claim from the incompetent’s funds before proceeding against the father or his estate.

1945In doing that it may have been guided by Matter of Andrews v. L. & S. Amusement Corp. ( 253 N. Y. 97 ).

1941(Ridden v. Thrall, 125 N. Y. 572 .) The partial disallowance of the claim is based here upon a different theory of the law of gifts.

1939(Matter of Garvin, 256 N. Y. 518 ; Matter of Stumpp, 153 Misc. 92, 100-101 ; Matter of Young, 156 id. 795, 800.) The evidence supports the disallowance of the claim against the estate made by appellant Joseph Green.

1939(Matter of Garvin, 256 N. Y. 518 ; Matter of Stumpp, 153 Misc. 92, 100-101 ; Matter of Young, 156 id. 795, 800.) The evidence supports the disallowance of the claim against the estate made by appellant Joseph Green.

1937(See McGirr v. Campbell, 71 App. Div. 83, 85 .) Last partial and separate final decree, in so far. as it makes an award of nominal damages to unknown owners for that part of damage parcel No. 823 which lies between the easterly and the westerly bounds of appellant’s property, reversed on the law and the facts and the matter remitted for a further hearing, costs to abide the event.

1933(Brinkman v. Cram, 175 App. Div. 372, 373 .) As a matter of practical fact, the result upon the creditor of the disallowance of his claim is negligible, since the preferred charges for funeral and administration expenses substantially if not entirely consume the funds in the hands of the administrator.

1914Johnson v. Supervisors of Delaware County, 45 N. Y. 196 ; Osterhoudt v. Rigney, 98 N. Y. 222 ; Foy v. County of Westchester, 168 N. Y. 180 ; People v. Sutherland, 207 N. Y. 22 .) An audit may consist either of the total disallowance of a claim or of its allowance in whole or in part.