may review waiver in New York

2021In so holding, we are mindful that "[a] decision duly filed and served approving an agreement submitted to the [B]oard shall not be subject to review" under Workers' Compensation Law § 23 (Workers' Compensation Law § 32 [c]), and "that neither the Board nor this Court may review a waiver agreement once it has been approved" ( Matter of Palmer v Special Metals Corp. , 42 AD3d 833, 834 [2007] [internal [*2]quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Chen v Five Star Travel of NY Inc. , 150 AD3d 1505, 1507 [2017]).

2017The Board’s determination is reinforced by its finding that Five Star’s application to reopen was “untimely” (see 12 NYCRR 300.14 [b]; Matter of *1507 Barone v Interstate Maintenance Corp., 73 AD3d 1302, 1303 [2010]). * The Board was also right to decline to revisit its prior approval of the Workers’ Compensation Law § 32 settlement agreement since, “[a]lthough the Board has continuing jurisdiction over its cases pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 123, . . . ‘neither the Board nor this Court may review a waiver agreement once it has been approved’ ” (Matter of Palmer v Special Metals Corp

2017The Board’s determination is reinforced by its finding that Five Star’s application to reopen was “untimely” (see 12 NYCRR 300.14 [b]; Matter of *1507 Barone v Interstate Maintenance Corp., 73 AD3d 1302, 1303 [2010]). * The Board was also right to decline to revisit its prior approval of the Workers’ Compensation Law § 32 settlement agreement since, “[a]lthough the Board has continuing jurisdiction over its cases pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 123, . . . ‘neither the Board nor this Court may review a waiver agreement once it has been approved’ ” (Matter of Palmer v Special Metals Corp

2017The Board’s determination is reinforced by its finding that Five Star’s application to reopen, which was not made until two years after Five Star’s president became aware of the claim, was “untimely” (see 12 NYCRR 300.14 [b]; Matter of Barone v Interstate Maintenance Corp., 73 AD3d 1302, 1303 [2010]). * The Board was also right to decline to revisit its prior approval of the Workers’ Compensation Law § 32 settlement agreement since, “[although the Board has continuing jurisdiction over its cases pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 123, . . . ‘neither the Board nor this Court may review a w

2021In our view, however, the Board's continuing jurisdiction under Workers' Compensation Law § 123 includes consideration of the threshold issue of whether the statutory time limitations in Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (h) (2) (B) are applicable ( see generally Matter of Multari v Keenan Oil Co. , 307 AD2d 651, 652 [2003], lv dismissed 1 NY3d 622 [2004]).

2007Workers’ Compensation Law § 32 (c) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] decision duly filed and served approving an agreement submitted to the board shall not be subject to review pursuant to section twenty-three of this article.” Although the Board has continuing jurisdiction over its cases pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 123, it is well settled that “neither the Board nor this Court may review a waiver agreement once it has been approved” (Matter of Drummond v Desmond, 295 AD2d 711, 714 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 615 [2002] ; see Matter of Estate of Lutz v Lakeside Beikirk Nursing Ho

2017The Board’s determination is reinforced by its finding that Five Star’s application to reopen was “untimely” (see 12 NYCRR 300.14 [b]; Matter of *1507 Barone v Interstate Maintenance Corp., 73 AD3d 1302, 1303 [2010]). * The Board was also right to decline to revisit its prior approval of the Workers’ Compensation Law § 32 settlement agreement since, “[a]lthough the Board has continuing jurisdiction over its cases pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 123, . . . ‘neither the Board nor this Court may review a waiver agreement once it has been approved’ ” (Matter of Palmer v Special Metals Corp

2017The Board’s determination is reinforced by its finding that Five Star’s application to reopen, which was not made until two years after Five Star’s president became aware of the claim, was “untimely” (see 12 NYCRR 300.14 [b]; Matter of Barone v Interstate Maintenance Corp., 73 AD3d 1302, 1303 [2010]). * The Board was also right to decline to revisit its prior approval of the Workers’ Compensation Law § 32 settlement agreement since, “[although the Board has continuing jurisdiction over its cases pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 123, . . . ‘neither the Board nor this Court may review a w

2011Further, ‘‘[although the Board has continuing jurisdiction over its cases pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 123, it is well settled that ‘neither the Board nor this Court may review a waiver agreement once it has been approved’ ” (Matter of Palmer v Special Metals Corp., 42 AD3d 833, 834 [2007], quoting Matter of Drummond v Desmond, 295 AD2d 711, 714 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 615 [2002]; see Matter of Estate of Lutz v Lakeside Beikirk Nursing Home, 301 AD2d 688, 690 [2003], lv dismissed 99 NY2d 651 [2003]).

2007Workers’ Compensation Law § 32 (c) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] decision duly filed and served approving an agreement submitted to the board shall not be subject to review pursuant to section twenty-three of this article.” Although the Board has continuing jurisdiction over its cases pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 123, it is well settled that “neither the Board nor this Court may review a waiver agreement once it has been approved” (Matter of Drummond v Desmond, 295 AD2d 711, 714 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 615 [2002] ; see Matter of Estate of Lutz v Lakeside Beikirk Nursing Ho

2026(S ee CPLR 3026; see also Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994].) The Court may review the claim and its attachments to determine whether or not it has sufficiently stated a cause of action. ( See CPLR 3014 ["(a) copy of any writing which is attached to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes"]; see also Matter of Lynch v Duffy , 172 AD3d 1370, 1373 [2d Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 906 [2019] [Exhibits attached to a claim may rescue it when challenged on insufficient pleading grounds]; Ross v State of New York , UID No. 2024-062-014 [Ct Cl, Chaudhry, J., May 20, 2024] [CPLR 3014 ap

2026(S ee CPLR 3026; see also Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994].) The Court may review the claim and its attachments to determine whether or not it has sufficiently stated a cause of action. ( See CPLR 3014 ["(a) copy of any writing which is attached to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes"]; see also Matter of Lynch v Duffy , 172 AD3d 1370 , 1373 [2d Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 906 [2019] [Exhibits attached to a claim may rescue it when challenged on insufficient pleading grounds]; Ross v State of New York , UID No. 2024-062-014 [Ct Cl, Chaudhry, J., May 20, 2024] [CPLR 3014 a

2026(S ee CPLR 3026; see also Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994].) The Court may review the claim and its attachments to determine whether or not it has sufficiently stated a cause of action. ( See CPLR 3014 ["(a) copy of any writing which is attached to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes"]; see also Matter of Lynch v Duffy , 172 AD3d 1370, 1373 [2d Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 906 [2019] [Exhibits attached to a claim may rescue it when challenged on insufficient pleading grounds]; Ross v State of New York , UID No. 2024-062-014 [Ct Cl, Chaudhry, J., May 20, 2024] [CPLR 3014 ap

2026(S ee CPLR 3026; see also Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994].) The Court may review the claim and its attachments to determine whether or not it has sufficiently stated a cause of action. ( See CPLR 3014 ["(a) copy of any writing which is attached to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes"]; see also Matter of Lynch v Duffy , 172 AD3d 1370 , 1373 [2d Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 906 [2019] [Exhibits attached to a claim may rescue it when challenged on insufficient pleading grounds]; Ross v State of New York , UID No. 2024-062-014 [Ct Cl, Chaudhry, J., May 20, 2024] [CPLR 3014 a

2026(S ee CPLR 3026; see also Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994].) The Court may review the claim and its attachments to determine whether or not it has sufficiently stated a cause of action. ( See CPLR 3014 ["(a) copy of any writing which is attached to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes"]; see also Matter of Lynch v Duffy , 172 AD3d 1370, 1373 [2d Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 906 [2019] [Exhibits attached to a claim may rescue it when challenged on insufficient pleading grounds]; Ross v State of New York , UID No. 2024-062-014 [Ct Cl, Chaudhry, J., May 20, 2024] [CPLR 3014 ap

2026(S ee CPLR 3026; see also Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994].) The Court may review the claim and its attachments to determine whether or not it has sufficiently stated a cause of action. ( See CPLR 3014 ["(a) copy of any writing which is attached to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes"]; see also Matter of Lynch v Duffy , 172 AD3d 1370 , 1373 [2d Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 906 [2019] [Exhibits attached to a claim may rescue it when challenged on insufficient pleading grounds]; Ross v State of New York , UID No. 2024-062-014 [Ct Cl, Chaudhry, J., May 20, 2024] [CPLR 3014 a

2026(S ee CPLR 3026; see also Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994].) The Court may review the claim and its attachments to determine whether or not it has sufficiently stated a cause of action. ( See CPLR 3014 ["(a) copy of any writing which is attached to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes"]; see also Matter of Lynch v Duffy , 172 AD3d 1370, 1373 [2d Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 906 [2019] [Exhibits attached to a claim may rescue it when challenged on insufficient pleading grounds]; Ross v State of New York , UID No. 2024-062-014 [Ct Cl, Chaudhry, J., May 20, 2024] [CPLR 3014 ap

2026(S ee CPLR 3026; see also Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994].) The Court may review the claim and its attachments to determine whether or not it has sufficiently stated a cause of action. ( See CPLR 3014 ["(a) copy of any writing which is attached to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes"]; see also Matter of Lynch v Duffy , 172 AD3d 1370, 1373 [2d Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 906 [2019] [Exhibits attached to a claim may rescue it when challenged on insufficient pleading grounds]; Ross v State of New York , UID No. 2024-062-014 [Ct Cl, Chaudhry, J., May 20, 2024] [CPLR 3014 ap

2026(S ee CPLR 3026; see also Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994].) The Court may review the claim and its attachments to determine whether or not it has sufficiently stated a cause of action. ( See CPLR 3014 ["(a) copy of any writing which is attached to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes"]; see also Matter of Lynch v Duffy , 172 AD3d 1370, 1373 [2d Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 906 [2019] [Exhibits attached to a claim may rescue it when challenged on insufficient pleading grounds]; Ross v State of New York , UID No. 2024-062-014 [Ct Cl, Chaudhry, J., May 20, 2024] [CPLR 3014 ap

2026(S ee CPLR 3026; see also Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994].) The Court may review the claim and its attachments to determine whether or not it has sufficiently stated a cause of action. ( See CPLR 3014 ["(a) copy of any writing which is attached to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes"]; see also Matter of Lynch v Duffy , 172 AD3d 1370 , 1373 [2d Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 906 [2019] [Exhibits attached to a claim may rescue it when challenged on insufficient pleading grounds]; Ross v State of New York , UID No. 2024-062-014 [Ct Cl, Chaudhry, J., May 20, 2024] [CPLR 3014 a

2021In so holding, we are mindful that "[a] decision duly filed and served approving an agreement submitted to the [B]oard shall not be subject to review" under Workers' Compensation Law § 23 (Workers' Compensation Law § 32 [c]), and "that neither the Board nor this Court may review a waiver agreement once it has been approved" ( Matter of Palmer v Special Metals Corp. , 42 AD3d 833, 834 [2007] [internal [*2]quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Chen v Five Star Travel of NY Inc. , 150 AD3d 1505, 1507 [2017]).

2017Nonetheless, this Court may review this waiver argument because it presents a question of law which could not have been avoided if brought to the Supreme Court’s attention at the proper juncture (see Gutierrez v State of New York, 58 AD3d 805, 807 [2009]).