In re the Claim of Bobian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Bobian

13 A.D.3d 712, 785 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14705

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

DecidedDecember 2, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 712 (In re the Claim of Bobian) 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 Bobian, 13 A.D.3d 712, 785 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[713]*713Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 26, 2004, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

By initial determination dated November 18, 2003, claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to disqualifying misconduct. Claimant admitted receiving the determination shortly after it was mailed, but his request for a hearing was not received until December 31, 2003, which is beyond the 30-day limitations period (see Labor Law § 620 [1]). Although claimant failed to include sufficient postage on his initial attempt to request a hearing and was thereafter away from his home for 11 days, we find no reason to disturb the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant failed to establish any valid reason excusing his untimely request for a hearing (see Matter of Kearns [Commissioner of Labor], 296 AD2d 761 [2002]; Matter of Velez [Commissioner of Labor], 285 AD2d 882, 883 [2001]). In view of the foregoing, the merits of the initial determination denying his request for unemployment insurance benefits are not properly before this Court (see Matter of McKinley [Commissioner of Labor], 307 AD2d 506 [2003]).

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, 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

[713]*713Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 26, 2004, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

By initial determination dated November 18, 2003, claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to disqualifying misconduct. Claimant admitted receiving the determination shortly after it was mailed, but his request for a hearing was not received until December 31, 2003, which is beyond the 30-day limitations period (see Labor Law § 620 [1]). Although claimant failed to include sufficient postage on his initial attempt to request a hearing and was thereafter away from his home for 11 days, we find no reason to disturb the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant failed to establish any valid reason excusing his untimely request for a hearing (see Matter of Kearns [Commissioner of Labor], 296 AD2d 761 [2002]; Matter of Velez [Commissioner of Labor], 285 AD2d 882, 883 [2001]). In view of the foregoing, the merits of the initial determination denying his request for unemployment insurance benefits are not properly before this Court (see Matter of McKinley [Commissioner of Labor], 307 AD2d 506 [2003]).

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 712, 785 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-bobian-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack