In re Chanthyasack

37 A.D.3d 963, 829 N.Y.S.2d 749
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 15, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 963 (In re Chanthyasack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Chanthyasack, 37 A.D.3d 963, 829 N.Y.S.2d 749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 9, 2005, which denied claimant’s application to reopen and reconsider a prior decision.

Claimant was initially disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Claimant requested a hearing which he failed to attend. Based upon claimant’s default, the initial [964]*964determination was sustained. An Administrative Law Judge denied claimant’s subsequent application to reopen, and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed. Claimant appeals from the Board’s decision.

We affirm. “Whether to grant an application to reopen a decision is within the discretion of the Board and, absent a showing that the Board abused its discretion, its decision will not be disturbed” (Matter of Kendricks [Commissioner of Labor], 1 AD3d 682, 682-683 [2003] [citations omitted]). Claimant’s excuse for failing to attend the administrative hearing that he had requested was that he had neglected to timely open his mail notifying him of the hearing. We find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s denial of claimant’s application to reopen the default on this basis.

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Feters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Stennett (Commissioner of Labor)
210 A.D.3d 1154 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Amoia (Commr. of Labor)
142 A.D.3d 1228 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of New York City Chess Inc. (Commr. of Labor)
130 A.D.3d 1125 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
In re Becker
108 A.D.3d 930 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re the Claim of McCauley
104 A.D.3d 973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re Lambrecht
102 A.D.3d 1050 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re the Claim of Childs
69 A.D.3d 1070 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re the Claim of Washington
65 A.D.3d 1428 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Monroe
59 A.D.3d 836 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 A.D.3d 963, 829 N.Y.S.2d 749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-chanthyasack-nyappdiv-2007.