| Matter of Mangroo v Paramount Brands |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08598 [101 AD3d 1299] |
| December 13, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Rudy Mangroo,Claimant, v Paramount Brands et al., Appellants, and Eber Brothers Wine & LiquorCorporation et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
—[*1] Stewart, Greenblatt, Manning & Baez, Syosset (Michael H. Ruina of counsel), for EberBrothers Wine & Liquor Corporation and another, respondents.
Egan Jr., J. Appeals (1) from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed June 7,2011, which ruled, among other things, that the State Insurance Fund must reimburse OneBeacon Insurance Company certain amounts, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filedOctober 28, 2011, which denied the State Insurance Fund's request for reconsideration and/or fullBoard review.
Claimant, a warehouse worker, sustained three compensable injuries while working for theemployer, two of which occurred while the State Insurance Fund (hereinafter SIF) was theemployer's workers' compensation carrier and one of which occurred while One BeaconInsurance Company was the employer's workers' compensation carrier. In February 2008, a [*2]Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) ruled thatclaimant was permanently partially disabled and awarded benefits in the amount of $50,730, withcontinuing payments at the rate of $285 per week. The WCLJ also apportioned liability equallyas to each of the three claims ($16,910) and directed that the respective carriers reimburse eachother according to their proportionate shares of the award.
SIF and One Beacon subsequently claimed that they each paid the entire sum due to claimantand, as a result, sought reimbursement from one another as to the asserted overpayment.Following various hearings, at which both carriers were given the opportunity to providecanceled checks or other documentation to establish the amount claimed to be due and owing, aWCLJ directed SIF to reimburse One Beacon $33,820 ($16,910 x 2) for its proportionate share ofthe prior award. SIF appealed that decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, attachingadditional documentation relative to the claimed overpayment, which the Board rejected asuntimely. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, and SIF's subsequent request forreconsideration and/or full Board review was denied, prompting these appeals.
Initially, inasmuch as SIF did not brief the denial of its application for reconsideration and/orfull Board review, we deem its appeal in this regard to be abandoned (see Matter of Amacio v Tully Constr.,82 AD3d 1371, 1371 n [2011]). As to the merits, the record reflects that SIF was affordedample opportunity to provide documentation of its purported overpayment, which it repeatedlyfailed to do—even after being expressly directed to do so by the Board in May 2010.Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the Board erred in either rejecting the belateddocumentation or directing SIF to reimburse One Beacon based upon the evidence that wastimely submitted (see generally Matterof Wiess v Mittal, 96 AD3d 1175, 1177 [2012]; Matter of Curtis v Xerox, 66 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2009]). SIF'sremaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.
Rose, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr. and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed,without costs.