In re the Claim of De Prima

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of De Prima

260 A.D.2d 715, 687 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3277

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

DecidedApril 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 715 (In re the Claim of De Prima) 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 De Prima, 260 A.D.2d 715, 687 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 26, 1998, which denied claimant’s application to reopen and reconsider a prior decision of the Board.

Whether to grant an application to reopen a decision is within the discretion of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and, absent an abuse of that discretion, the Board’s decision will not be disturbed (see, Matter of Trincere [Sweeney], 235 AD2d 904). Here, claimant has failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion on the part of the Board in denying his application to reopen and reconsider its decision of March 31, 1992. The June 5, 1980 letter, upon which claimant relies, is not new information as it was previously presented to the Board on claimant’s prior application to reopen and reconsider the Board’s previous decision disqualifying him from receiving benefits on the basis of misconduct, which application resulted in the Board adhering to its initial decision (see, e.g., Matter of Van Bergen [Commissioner of Labor], 258 AD2d 705).

In any event, the March 31, 1992 decision was limited to determining whether there was compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in Municipal Labor Comm, v Sitkin (US Dist Ct, SD NY, Aug. 1, 1984, Carter, J. [79 Civ 5899], 1983 WL 44294, 1983 US Dist Lexis 13783). Having found no substantial procedural infirmities, the Board declined to address the merits of the case. Accordingly, claimant’s attempt to reargue the merits of his disqualification will not be considered by this Court.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III 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 26, 1998, which denied claimant’s application to reopen and reconsider a prior decision of the Board.

Whether to grant an application to reopen a decision is within the discretion of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and, absent an abuse of that discretion, the Board’s decision will not be disturbed (see, Matter of Trincere [Sweeney], 235 AD2d 904). Here, claimant has failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion on the part of the Board in denying his application to reopen and reconsider its decision of March 31, 1992. The June 5, 1980 letter, upon which claimant relies, is not new information as it was previously presented to the Board on claimant’s prior application to reopen and reconsider the Board’s previous decision disqualifying him from receiving benefits on the basis of misconduct, which application resulted in the Board adhering to its initial decision (see, e.g., Matter of Van Bergen [Commissioner of Labor], 258 AD2d 705).

In any event, the March 31, 1992 decision was limited to determining whether there was compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in Municipal Labor Comm, v Sitkin (US Dist Ct, SD NY, Aug. 1, 1984, Carter, J. [79 Civ 5899], 1983 WL 44294, 1983 US Dist Lexis 13783). Having found no substantial procedural infirmities, the Board declined to address the merits of the case. Accordingly, claimant’s attempt to reargue the merits of his disqualification will not be considered by this Court.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 715, 687 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-de-prima-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack