In re the Claim of Carlson

95 A.D.3d 1589, 943 N.Y.S.2d 924

This text of 95 A.D.3d 1589 (In re the Claim of Carlson) 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 Carlson, 95 A.D.3d 1589, 943 N.Y.S.2d 924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 27, 2011, which denied petitioner’s application to reopen a prior decision.

In 2002, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment [1590]*1590without good cause, and the Board’s decision was affirmed by this Court (Matter of Carlson [Commissioner of Labor], 307 AD2d 582 [2003]). In 2010, claimant applied to the Board to reopen and reconsider this decision. The Board denied claimant’s application and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. It is well settled that the decision to grant an application for reopening is within the discretion of the Board and its decision will not be disturbed absent a showing that the Board abused its discretion (see Matter of Lee [Commissioner of Labor], 84 AD3d 1652, 1653 [2011]; Matter of Washington [Kaleida Health — Commissioner of Labor], 65 AD3d 1428, 1429 [2009]). Here, claimant has not alleged that the Board abused its discretion and, consequently, we find no reason to disturb its decision denying her application to reopen (see Matter of Miller [Commissioner of Labor], 67 AD3d 1246 [2009]; Matter of Wood [Commissioner of Labor], 24 AD3d 854, 855 [2005]). We decline to reach the merits of the Board’s underlying decision inasmuch as this was addressed in her prior appeal (see Matter of Washington [Kaleida Health — Commissioner of Labor], 65 AD3d at 1429).

Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Spain, Stein and McCarthy, 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

Related

In re Wood
24 A.D.3d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Washington
65 A.D.3d 1428 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Miller
67 A.D.3d 1246 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Lee
84 A.D.3d 1652 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re the Claim of Carlson
307 A.D.2d 582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 A.D.3d 1589, 943 N.Y.S.2d 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-carlson-nyappdiv-2012.