In re the Claim of Alperin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Alperin

201 A.D.2d 815, 609 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1144

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 815 (In re the Claim of Alperin) 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 the Claim of Alperin, 201 A.D.2d 815, 609 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1144 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 1, 1993, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision dismissing claimant’s appeal as untimely.

Upon reopening its decision for the sole purpose of determining whether there was compliance with the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (US Dist Ct, SD NY, Aug. 1, 1983, Carter, J., 79 Civ 5899), the Board found no substantial procedural violations and it therefore adhered to its original decision dismissing claimant’s appeal as untimely. We agree with the Board that claimant’s contentions in this regard are meritless and, therefore, an affirmance is required.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, White and Weiss, 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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 1, 1993, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision dismissing claimant’s appeal as untimely.

Upon reopening its decision for the sole purpose of determining whether there was compliance with the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (US Dist Ct, SD NY, Aug. 1, 1983, Carter, J., 79 Civ 5899), the Board found no substantial procedural violations and it therefore adhered to its original decision dismissing claimant’s appeal as untimely. We agree with the Board that claimant’s contentions in this regard are meritless and, therefore, an affirmance is required.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, White and Weiss, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 815, 609 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-alperin-nyappdiv-1994.