Matter of Moreno v Licea

Annotate this Case
Matter of Moreno v Licea 2010 NY Slip Op 05636 [74 AD3d 1674] June 24, 2010 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, August 25, 2010

In the Matter of the Claim of Jorge Moreno, Appellant, v Luis Licea, Respondent, and 2180 Realty Corporation et al., Respondents, and Rochdale Insurance Company, Appellant. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

—[*1] Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York City (Arnold E. DiJoseph, III of counsel), for Jorge Moreno, appellant.

Foley, Smit, O'Boyle & Weisman, New York City (David L. Wecker of counsel), for Rochdale Insurance Company, appellant.

Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, L.L.P., New York City (Amy L. Fenno of O'Connor Redd, L.L.P., White Plains of counsel), for 2180 Realty Corporation, respondent.

Kim Stuart Swidler, Uninsured Employers' Fund, Albany, for Uninsured Employers' Fund, respondent.

Egan Jr., J. Appeals (1) from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed April 6, 2009, which, among other things, ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between claimant and 2180 Realty Corporation, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed October 16, 2009, which denied claimant's request for reconsideration or full Board review.

The current case arises from the same workplace accident as in Matter of Perez v Licea (74 AD3d 1672 [2010] [decided herewith]) and involves the identical issues.[FN*] For the reasons set forth in Perez, along with the fact that in this case Joseph Edelman acknowledges discussing work performance with claimant, we affirm.

Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs. Footnotes

Footnote *: As in Perez, claimant's appeal from the denial of his request for full Board review or reconsideration is deemed abandoned as he did not raise any issues with respect thereto in his brief on appeal (see Matter of Church v Arrow Elec., Inc., 69 AD3d 983, 984 n 3 [2010]).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.