| Matter of Mejia v Camabo Indus., Inc. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03897 [117 AD3d 1362] |
| May 29, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of the Claim of Carlos Mejia, Appellant, vCamabo Industries, Inc., et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
Law Offices of Joseph Romano, Yonkers (Anthony Brooks-Morgese of counsel), forappellant.
Weiss, Wexler & Wornow, PC, New York City (Lauren M. Bilasz ofcounsel), for Camabo Industries, Inc. and another, respondents.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Segall ofcounsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filedNovember 21, 2012, which, among other things, denied claimant's request for a changeof venue.
Claimant was injured during his employment as a bridge painter and filed a claim forworkers' compensation benefits. Thereafter, on an undated form on his counsel'sletterhead, he requested that hearings on his claim be conducted in the City of WhitePlains, Westchester County for convenience. Relying on a statement of general policy ofthe Chair of the Board,[FN*]
and [*2]because claimant lived in Bronx County andworked in Nassau County, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the request, andclaimant appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board affirmed the denialof claimant's request and, finding that the matter had been continued without reasonablegrounds, assessed costs of $500 against counsel for claimant pursuant to Workers'Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii). Claimant now appeals.
We affirm. Claimant's challenge to the validity of a statement of general policy of theChair of the Board has not been preserved for our review by his failure to raise it beforethe Board and, in any event, we have recently adjudged that contention to be withoutmerit (Matter of Toledo vAdministration for Children Servs., 112 AD3d 1209, 1210 [2013]). With regardto the denial of the requested venue itself, the Chair has controlling authority to designatehearing places, and claimant's conclusory assertions have not established a valid basis fordisturbing the Board's decision (see Workers' Compensation Law§ 141; 12 NYCRR 300.7 [b]; Matter of Toledo v Administration forChildren Servs., 112 AD3d at 1210). Turning to counsel's challenge to theassessment of costs, we have repeatedly upheld the imposition of a penalty pursuant toWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii) when the record containssubstantial evidence, as it does here, that a venue request was made without a reasonablebasis (see Matter of Toledo v Administration for Children Servs., 112 AD3d at1210; Matter of Wolfe v NewYork City Dept. of Corr., 112 AD3d 1197, 1198 [2013]; Matter of Banton v New York CityDept. of Corr., 112 AD3d 1195, 1196-1197 [2013]). Claimant's remainingcontentions, to the extent they have been preserved for our review, have been consideredand found to be without merit.
Peters, P.J., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision isaffirmed, without costs.
Footnote *:The policy provides,among other things, that hearings are to be scheduled in the district where a claimantresides.