Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the Claim of Charles HOLLOWAY, Claimant, v. WEST STREET TRUCKING et al., Appellants, State Insurance Fund et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed April 2, 2003, which ruled, inter alia, that National Union Fire Insurance Company is the proper workers' compensation carrier and directed it to reimburse the State Insurance Fund for all awards made.
In September 1989, claimant suffered a cardiovascular accident while working for the employer and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits 10 months later. National Union Fire Insurance Company was the employer's workers' compensation carrier at the time of the work-related accident but the State Insurance Fund (hereinafter SIF) was the employer's carrier when the claim was filed and was mistakenly placed on notice. In June 1992 National was placed on notice and eventually controverted the claim raising, among other things, the issue of laches. Over the next several years numerous hearings were held until a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) finally determined that National was the proper carrier and the WCLJ directed National to reimburse the SIF for all payments made in the case. National filed an application for review alleging that the SIF's delay in investigating the claim, uncovering a prior medical condition and filing a C-250 claim prejudiced and precluded it from pursuing reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund (see Workers' Compensation Law § 15[8] ). The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, and National appeals.
We affirm. Failure to assert a right for an “unreasonable and unexplained length of time, accompanied by other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, operates as a basis for the doctrine of laches” (Matter of Taylor v. Vassar Coll., 138 A.D.2d 70, 73, 530 N.Y.S.2d 289 [1988]; see Matter of Ricciardi v. Johnstown Leather, 1 A.D.3d 661, 663, 768 N.Y.S.2d 28 [2003]; Matter of Kobre v. Camp Mogen Avraham, 293 A.D.2d 893, 895, 741 N.Y.S.2d 292 [2002]; Matter of Carney v. Newburgh Park Motors, 84 A.D.2d 599, 600, 444 N.Y.S.2d 220 [1981] ). In this record, however, there is substantial evidence that the SIF acted diligently in defending this claim and that National knew or should have known of claimant's September 1989 accident as early as December 1989. Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the Board's decision.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
LAHTINEN, J.
PETERS, J.P., CARPINELLO and MUGGLIN, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 13, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)