In re Claim of Canellos

21 A.D.3d 636, 799 N.Y.S.2d 330, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8291
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 4, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 636 (In re Claim of Canellos) 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 Claim of Canellos, 21 A.D.3d 636, 799 N.Y.S.2d 330, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 15, 2004, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she failed to comply with registration requirements.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits effective July 26, 2004 through August 22, 2004 because she failed to comply with registration requirements. The record establishes that claimant was discharged from her employment as a secretary for a high school on July 22, 2004. Claimant nevertheless failed to apply for unemployment insurance benefits until August 27, 2004 because she was told by the employer’s bookkeeper that she could not file for unemployment insurance benefits during the six weeks that she was receiving severance pay. It is well settled that “a claimant’s reliance on an employer’s substantive interpretation of the unemployment insurance law is unreasonable since a claimant could readily clarify his [or her] status by contacting the local unemployment office” (Matter of Walker [Hartnett], 151 AD2d 897, 898 [1989]; see Matter of Carey [Commissioner of Labor], 258 AD2d 870, 871 [1999]; Matter of Katz [Hudacs], 191 AD2d 865, 865-866 [1993]). Claimant admittedly made no effort to contact the Department of Labor until she filed her original claim. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision that claimant failed to present good cause to excuse her delay in properly registering for unemployment insurance benefits (see id.).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, 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 Pickton (Commr. of Labor)
127 A.D.3d 1484 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
In re the Claim of Breton
30 A.D.3d 661 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 A.D.3d 636, 799 N.Y.S.2d 330, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-claim-of-canellos-nyappdiv-2005.