| Matter of Difilippo v Con Edison |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03898 [117 AD3d 1363] |
| May 29, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of the Claim of Rocco Difilippo,Appellant, v Con Edison et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
Law Offices of Joseph Romano, Yonkers (Anthony Brooks-Morgese of counsel), forappellant.
Vecchione, Vecchione & Connors, Garden City Park (Heather N. Babitsof counsel), for Con Edison and another, respondents.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Segall ofcounsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Peters, P.J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filedNovember 2, 2012, which, among other things, denied claimant's request for a change ofvenue.
Claimant resides in New York City, and successfully applied for workers'compensation benefits after he was injured while working for the employer in the Bronx.He thereafter requested, upon a form provided by his attorney, a change of venue fromthe district office in Manhattan to one in the City of White Plains, Westchester County. AWorkers' Compensation Law Judge rejected the request, prompting claimant to seekreview from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board affirmed, pointing out that itsrules generally require that hearings be conducted in the district where the claimantresides and, here, a "sufficient justification" to warrant a change in venue was notprovided. Specifically, the Board rejected claimant's contention that it would be easierand less expensive for him to attend hearings in [*2]White Plains as speculative and unsupported by anyevidence. The Board also assessed a $250 penalty against claimant's attorney pursuant toWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii) for seeking review withoutreasonable grounds. Claimant now appeals, and we affirm.
As we recently noted, the Chair of the Board "has controlling authority to designatehearing places" (Matter ofToledo v Administration for Children Servs., 112 AD3d 1209, 1210 [2013]),and did so here. Claimant made no effort to justify the change of venue beyond makingunsupported assertions in a brief letter, and the Board noted that claimant's attorney hadpreviously been made aware of the requirement that justification be provided for arequest to change venue under these circumstances. As such, substantial evidencesupports the Board's determination that claimant had not demonstrated the need for achange of venue, and we decline to disturb its imposition of a penalty pursuant toWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii) (see id.; Matter of Wolfe v New York CityDept. of Corr., 112 AD3d 1197, 1198 [2013]).
Lahtinen, McCarthy, Garry and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision isaffirmed, without costs.