In re the Claim of Chandler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Chandler

240 A.D.2d 816, 659 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6018

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

DecidedJune 5, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 816 (In re the Claim of Chandler) 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 Chandler, 240 A.D.2d 816, 659 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 17, 1996, which dismissed claimant’s appeal as untimely.

Claimant failed to file her notice of appeal from the decision of the Administrative Law Judge within the 20-day time limit set forth in Labor Law § 621 (1). Claimant has failed to offer a valid excuse for the delay in filing and we find no reason to disturb the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board dismissing her appeal (see, Matter of Ascenzo [Sweeney], 216 AD2d 659, 660; Matter of Sidoli [Hudacs], 202 AD2d 941).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey, Spain and Carpinello, 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 17, 1996, which dismissed claimant’s appeal as untimely.

Claimant failed to file her notice of appeal from the decision of the Administrative Law Judge within the 20-day time limit set forth in Labor Law § 621 (1). Claimant has failed to offer a valid excuse for the delay in filing and we find no reason to disturb the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board dismissing her appeal (see, Matter of Ascenzo [Sweeney], 216 AD2d 659, 660; Matter of Sidoli [Hudacs], 202 AD2d 941).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 816, 659 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-chandler-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack