In re the Claim of Dada

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Dada

41 A.D.3d 1079, 839 N.Y.S.2d 289

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

DecidedJune 21, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 1079 (In re the Claim of Dada) 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 Dada, 41 A.D.3d 1079, 839 N.Y.S.2d 289 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 9, 2006, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

By initial determination mailed on August 18, 2005, the Department of Labor found, among other things, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he left his employment without good cause. Claimant did not request a hearing until October 6, 2005. The Commissioner of Labor objected to the timeliness of the hearing and, following various proceedings, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant’s request was untimely, prompting this appeal.

[1080]*1080Pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), a claimant must request a hearing within 30 days of the date of the mailing of the initial determination. Here, claimant admitted to receiving the initial determination, but did not request a hearing within the 30-day time period. He attributed his delay to the fact that he was involved in a disagreement with partners in a new business venture at the time. Inasmuch as claimant has not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay (see Matter of Palumbos [Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1060 [2006]; Matter of Alkovic [Gold Shield Sec. & Investigation, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1062, 1063 [2006]), the Board properly found that his request was untimely.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, 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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 9, 2006, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

By initial determination mailed on August 18, 2005, the Department of Labor found, among other things, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he left his employment without good cause. Claimant did not request a hearing until October 6, 2005. The Commissioner of Labor objected to the timeliness of the hearing and, following various proceedings, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant’s request was untimely, prompting this appeal.

[1080]*1080Pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), a claimant must request a hearing within 30 days of the date of the mailing of the initial determination. Here, claimant admitted to receiving the initial determination, but did not request a hearing within the 30-day time period. He attributed his delay to the fact that he was involved in a disagreement with partners in a new business venture at the time. Inasmuch as claimant has not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay (see Matter of Palumbos [Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1060 [2006]; Matter of Alkovic [Gold Shield Sec. & Investigation, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1062, 1063 [2006]), the Board properly found that his request was untimely.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 1079, 839 N.Y.S.2d 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-dada-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack