In re the Claim of Brightman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Brightman

3 A.D.3d 780, 770 N.Y.S.2d 671, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 622

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 780 (In re the Claim of Brightman) 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 Brightman, 3 A.D.3d 780, 770 N.Y.S.2d 671, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 9, 2003, which dismissed claimant’s appeal from an Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

By decision of an Administrative Law Judge dated February 21, 2003, claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. Claimant admitted receiving the decision shortly [781]*781after it was mailed but failed to request an appeal until March 19, 2003. Following two hearings to consider the timeliness of the appeal, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that claimant failed to comply with the 20-day filing requirement of Labor Law § 621 (1) and dismissed the appeal.

We affirm. Given the evidence in the record and claimant’s failure to submit any evidence substantiating his claim that he filed an appeal within the statutory period, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision dismissing the appeal as untimely (see Matter of Kilgore [Legal Duplicating Servs.—Commissioner of Labor] 251 AD2d 731 [1998]). The underlying merits of the denial of claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits are, therefore, not properly before this Court (see Matter of Hungerford [Sams Club/Walmart—Commissioner of Labor], 273 AD2d 680, 681 [2000]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, 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 May 9, 2003, which dismissed claimant’s appeal from an Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

By decision of an Administrative Law Judge dated February 21, 2003, claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. Claimant admitted receiving the decision shortly [781]*781after it was mailed but failed to request an appeal until March 19, 2003. Following two hearings to consider the timeliness of the appeal, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that claimant failed to comply with the 20-day filing requirement of Labor Law § 621 (1) and dismissed the appeal.

We affirm. Given the evidence in the record and claimant’s failure to submit any evidence substantiating his claim that he filed an appeal within the statutory period, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision dismissing the appeal as untimely (see Matter of Kilgore [Legal Duplicating Servs.—Commissioner of Labor] 251 AD2d 731 [1998]). The underlying merits of the denial of claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits are, therefore, not properly before this Court (see Matter of Hungerford [Sams Club/Walmart—Commissioner of Labor], 273 AD2d 680, 681 [2000]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 780, 770 N.Y.S.2d 671, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-brightman-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack