In re Raff & Becker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Raff & Becker

208 A.D.2d 1086, 618 N.Y.S.2d 588, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9785

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 20, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 1086 (In re Raff & Becker) 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 Raff & Becker, 208 A.D.2d 1086, 618 N.Y.S.2d 588, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Mikoll, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 13, 1993, which, in an application pursuant to Labor Law § 538 (1) (c), determined counsel fees for Raff & Becker for its representation in an unemployment insurance proceeding.

Raff & Becker, the law firm which represented Ricardo Morales in his successful claim for unemployment insurance benefits, has brought this appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (hereinafter the Board) which, upon the application for reconsideration of the fee previously awarded by the Board (see, Labor Law § 538 [1] [c]), adhered to its prior determination fixing the fee at $250 (see, 12 NYCRR 460.6). Although neither party has raised the question of the subject matter jurisdiction of this court to hear this appeal, we deem it appropriate to consider the issue sua sponte.

In Matter of Dressman v Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. (91 AD2d 1147) this Court held: "Inasmuch as the [Bjoard’s decision was rendered in its administrative capacity rather than its appellate capacity, a direct appeal to this court, pursuant to section 624 of the Labor Law, does not lie.” We find the instant appeal to be indistinguishable from Matter of Dressman and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

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

—Mikoll, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 13, 1993, which, in an application pursuant to Labor Law § 538 (1) (c), determined counsel fees for Raff & Becker for its representation in an unemployment insurance proceeding.

Raff & Becker, the law firm which represented Ricardo Morales in his successful claim for unemployment insurance benefits, has brought this appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (hereinafter the Board) which, upon the application for reconsideration of the fee previously awarded by the Board (see, Labor Law § 538 [1] [c]), adhered to its prior determination fixing the fee at $250 (see, 12 NYCRR 460.6). Although neither party has raised the question of the subject matter jurisdiction of this court to hear this appeal, we deem it appropriate to consider the issue sua sponte.

In Matter of Dressman v Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. (91 AD2d 1147) this Court held: "Inasmuch as the [Bjoard’s decision was rendered in its administrative capacity rather than its appellate capacity, a direct appeal to this court, pursuant to section 624 of the Labor Law, does not lie.” We find the instant appeal to be indistinguishable from Matter of Dressman and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 1086, 618 N.Y.S.2d 588, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-raff-becker-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack