In re the Claim of Badillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Badillo

243 A.D.2d 914, 662 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10119

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D.2d 914 (In re the Claim of Badillo) 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 Badillo, 243 A.D.2d 914, 662 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 15, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

Claimant admitted that she received the notices of determination mailed on March 2, 1994 and March 3, 1994 advising her, inter alia, that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left [915]*915her employment without good cause and, alternatively, because she lost her employment through misconduct. These notices also informed her in English and Spanish that she had 30 days from the date of the notice to request a hearing. Claimant did not request a hearing until April 22, 1994, well after the expiration of the 30-day limitations period (see, Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]). There is no evidence that claimant’s “physical condition or mental incapacity” prevented her from filing a timely appeal (Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]; see, Matter of Rodriguez [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 734). In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision finding that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely and we, accordingly, affirm (see, Matter of Samaniego [Park Personnel—Sweeney], 235 AD2d 887; Matter of Knight [Sweeney], 234 AD2d 885).

Mercure, J. P.,.Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. 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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 15, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

Claimant admitted that she received the notices of determination mailed on March 2, 1994 and March 3, 1994 advising her, inter alia, that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left [915]*915her employment without good cause and, alternatively, because she lost her employment through misconduct. These notices also informed her in English and Spanish that she had 30 days from the date of the notice to request a hearing. Claimant did not request a hearing until April 22, 1994, well after the expiration of the 30-day limitations period (see, Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]). There is no evidence that claimant’s “physical condition or mental incapacity” prevented her from filing a timely appeal (Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]; see, Matter of Rodriguez [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 734). In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision finding that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely and we, accordingly, affirm (see, Matter of Samaniego [Park Personnel—Sweeney], 235 AD2d 887; Matter of Knight [Sweeney], 234 AD2d 885).

Mercure, J. P.,.Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 914, 662 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-badillo-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack