In re the Claim of Bennett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Bennett

187 A.D.2d 834

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 834 (In re the Claim of Bennett) 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 Bennett, 187 A.D.2d 834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 30, 1990, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

The only reason for reopening claimant’s case was to decide whether there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards set forth in the consent judgment of Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899). Once the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that there were no substantial procedural violations, it adhered to its prior decision which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. On this appeal, claimant fails to allege any procedural errors covered by the terms of the consent judgment; therefore, the Board’s decision must be upheld. In any event, claimant’s argument that he should have been awarded benefits because his employer failed to appear at the hearing is without merit (see generally, Di Tondo v H & R Block, 64 AD2d 750).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, 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 October 30, 1990, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

The only reason for reopening claimant’s case was to decide whether there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards set forth in the consent judgment of Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899). Once the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that there were no substantial procedural violations, it adhered to its prior decision which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. On this appeal, claimant fails to allege any procedural errors covered by the terms of the consent judgment; therefore, the Board’s decision must be upheld. In any event, claimant’s argument that he should have been awarded benefits because his employer failed to appear at the hearing is without merit (see generally, Di Tondo v H & R Block, 64 AD2d 750).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-bennett-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack