In re the Claim of Blinder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Blinder

216 A.D.2d 654, 627 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6163

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

DecidedJune 8, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 654 (In re the Claim of Blinder) 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 Blinder, 216 A.D.2d 654, 627 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6163 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 24, 1993, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

The Board reopened claimant’s case on its own motion for the sole purpose of ascertaining if there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards set forth in the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899, 1983 WL 44294). Having found no substantial procedural violations, the Board adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because she was not totally unemployed. We have considered the procedural arguments raised by claimant on appeal and find them to be without merit. We further note that since the Board did not address the merits of claimant’s case upon reconsideration, we decline to address the merits here. Accordingly, the Board’s decision should be upheld.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Casey and Peters, 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 December 24, 1993, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

The Board reopened claimant’s case on its own motion for the sole purpose of ascertaining if there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards set forth in the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899, 1983 WL 44294). Having found no substantial procedural violations, the Board adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because she was not totally unemployed. We have considered the procedural arguments raised by claimant on appeal and find them to be without merit. We further note that since the Board did not address the merits of claimant’s case upon reconsideration, we decline to address the merits here. Accordingly, the Board’s decision should be upheld.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 654, 627 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-blinder-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack