Calendar Date: March 27, 2018Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.__________Aaron Zimmerman, Syracuse, for appellant.Mackenzie Hughes LLP, Syracuse (Ryan T. Emery of counsel),for Luke M. Park and others, respondents.Barbara D. Underwood, Acting Attorney General, New YorkCity (Steven Segall of counsel), for Workers’ Compensation Board,respondent.__________Egan Jr., J.P.Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board,filed April 6, 2017, which ruled that the employer was insured bythe State Insurance Fund and awarded workers’ compensation deathbenefits.In July 2015, Alex K. Smith (hereinafter decedent), then 14years old, was killed while operating a skid steer owned by thePark Family Farm in the Town of Homer, Cortland County.Decedent’s accident was unwitnessed, but Luke M. Park, one of thepartners comprising Park Family Farm, and another individualfound decedent crushed beneath a large bale of hay at the frontof the skid steer. Park Family Farm had obtained workers’compensation coverage through the State Insurance Fund(hereinafter SIF) under a policy covering the period fromDecember 31, 2014 to December 31, 2015. The policy in questionwas issued to Luke Park and his father, Michael R. Park, doingbusiness as Park Family Farm. Up until December 31, 2014, ParkFamily Farm operated as a father and son partnership. On thatdate, Michael Park withdrew from the partnership, and thepartnership thereafter consisted of Luke Park and the Luke Park2014 Special Business Trust, a trust that he had formed.Although the subject insurance policy required that SIF beapprised of any change in ownership, the only stated consequencefor failing to provide the required notice was a potentialrevision in the experience rating used to determine the premiumdue and owing.Against this backdrop, claimant — decedent’s mother and theadministrator of his estate — filed a claim for workers’compensation death benefits in March 2016, as well as an amendedclaim in June 2016. When the parties first appeared before aWorkers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ), SIF acceptedthe claim, notwithstanding Park Family Farm’s denial thatdecedent was an employee thereof, and the matter was continuedfor the development of various issues, including the identity ofthe proper employer. Following a hearing in June 2016, whereinSIF reiterated its acceptance of the claim, the WCLJ determined,among other things, that decedent was an illegally employed minorof Park Family Farm at the time of his death and awarded claimantand decedent’s father $25,000 each in death benefits. Claimant’smother returned SIF’s check and pursued administrative review –seeking a ruling that Park Family Farm did not have workers’compensation coverage in effect at the time of decedent’s deathand, hence, was an uninsured employer. Park Family Farm alsosought review by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Boardrejected claimant’s assertion that Park Family Farm was uninsuredat the time of decedent’s death and found that the WCLJ properlyawarded death benefits to both of decedent’s parents. However,because decedent’s employment was illegal due to his age, theBoard awarded each of decedent’s parents $50,000 under the doubleindemnity provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 14-a (1),bringing the total death benefit award to $100,000 — with ParkFamily Farm alone bearing the cost of the increased death benefit(see Workers’ Compensation Law § 14-a [2]). Claimant nowappeals, again contending that Park Family Farm was an uninsuredemployer at the time of decedent’s death.1We affirm. Contrary to claimant’s assertion, neither thestated name nor the structural composition of the insured isdeterminative of coverage; rather, it is the intent to cover therisk insured against that is controlling (see Matter of Foster vFoster Collision, 60 AD2d 739, 739 [1977]; Matter of Nicholas vFitzgibbons Boiler Co., 30 AD2d 1013, 1014 [1968]; Matter ofFredenburgh v Benjamin, 2 AD2d 912, 912 [1956]; Matter ofLipshitz v Hotel Charles, 226 App Div 839, 840 [1929], affd 252NY 518 [1929]; compare Matter of Vasquez v Gotham Hotel, 93 AD2d929, 929 [1983]). Stated another way, “[t]he mere dropping outof an insured partner does not vitiate the policy” (Matter ofFredenburgh v Benjamin, 2 AD2d at 912, citing Matter of Goldsteinv Goldstein, 243 App Div 657 [1935] and Matter of Angelo vTriangle Broom & Brush Co., 243 App Div 838 [1935]). Here, SIFaccepted the claim and acknowledged that coverage was afforded bythe policy at issue, thus evidencing its intent to cover thesubject risk. Further, and as noted previously, the only statedconsequence of failing to apprise SIF of a change in ownershipwas a potential change in the amount of the premium due. Underthese circumstances, the change in the composition of Park FamilyFarm as occasioned by Michael Park’s withdrawal therefrom did notvitiate the policy and, therefore, we discern no basis upon whichto disturb the Board’s finding of coverage.Lynch, Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court
