In re the Claim of Daniels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Daniels

216 A.D.2d 624, 627 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5874

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

DecidedJune 1, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 624 (In re the Claim of Daniels) 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 Daniels, 216 A.D.2d 624, 627 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 5, 1994, which denied claimant’s application for reopening and reconsideration.

Initially, we find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s rejection of claimant’s application to reopen its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he did not have a sufficient number of weeks of covered employment in his base period. Moreover, in view of claimant’s admission at the hearing that he was not prepared with accurate information when he filed his claim and that he used erroneous information on his application, as well as the testimony of claimant’s previous employers, substantial evidence supports the Board’s initial decision concerning claimant’s eligibility. This evidence also supports the Board’s finding that claimant was liable for an overpayment of benefits.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Casey, Peters and Spain, 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 5, 1994, which denied claimant’s application for reopening and reconsideration.

Initially, we find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s rejection of claimant’s application to reopen its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he did not have a sufficient number of weeks of covered employment in his base period. Moreover, in view of claimant’s admission at the hearing that he was not prepared with accurate information when he filed his claim and that he used erroneous information on his application, as well as the testimony of claimant’s previous employers, substantial evidence supports the Board’s initial decision concerning claimant’s eligibility. This evidence also supports the Board’s finding that claimant was liable for an overpayment of benefits.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 624, 627 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-daniels-nyappdiv-1995.