In re the Claim of Cunto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Cunto

109 A.D.3d 1076, 971 N.Y.S.2d 488

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.3d 1076 (In re the Claim of Cunto) 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 Cunto, 109 A.D.3d 1076, 971 N.Y.S.2d 488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 19, 2012, which dismissed claimant’s appeal from a decision of the Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

[1077]*1077By initial determination, claimant was, among other things, disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed and, additionally, was found to have made willful misrepresentations in order to obtain benefits. Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) sustained the initial determination in a decision filed January 25, 2012. Claimant thereafter waited until October 2012 to appeal the ALJ’s decision. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board declined to consider the appeal because it was not timely filed, and claimant failed to present good cause for her failure to do so. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. “Labor Law § 621 (1) requires that an appeal to the Board from an ALJ’s decision must be made within 20 days of the date the decision is mailed or personally delivered . . . and the statutory time limit is strictly construed” (Matter of Politis [Commissioner of Labor], 96 AD3d 1340, 1340 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Green [Commissioner of Labor], 87 AD3d 1222, 1222 [2011]). Here, claimant fails to offer any excuse for her untimely appeal and, instead, appears to solely address the underlying merits of the ALJ’s decision. However, given the untimely appeal, these issues are not properly before us and, therefore, we find no basis to disturb the Board’s ruling dismissing claimant’s appeal (see Matter of Politis [Commissioner of Labor], 96 AD3d at 1340).

Stein, J.E, McCarthy, Spain and Egan Jr., 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 November 19, 2012, which dismissed claimant’s appeal from a decision of the Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

[1077]*1077By initial determination, claimant was, among other things, disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed and, additionally, was found to have made willful misrepresentations in order to obtain benefits. Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) sustained the initial determination in a decision filed January 25, 2012. Claimant thereafter waited until October 2012 to appeal the ALJ’s decision. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board declined to consider the appeal because it was not timely filed, and claimant failed to present good cause for her failure to do so. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. “Labor Law § 621 (1) requires that an appeal to the Board from an ALJ’s decision must be made within 20 days of the date the decision is mailed or personally delivered . . . and the statutory time limit is strictly construed” (Matter of Politis [Commissioner of Labor], 96 AD3d 1340, 1340 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Green [Commissioner of Labor], 87 AD3d 1222, 1222 [2011]). Here, claimant fails to offer any excuse for her untimely appeal and, instead, appears to solely address the underlying merits of the ALJ’s decision. However, given the untimely appeal, these issues are not properly before us and, therefore, we find no basis to disturb the Board’s ruling dismissing claimant’s appeal (see Matter of Politis [Commissioner of Labor], 96 AD3d at 1340).

Stein, J.E, McCarthy, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.3d 1076, 971 N.Y.S.2d 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-cunto-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack