In re the Claim of Della Croce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Della Croce

275 A.D.2d 850, 713 N.Y.S.2d 512, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9353

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 850 (In re the Claim of Della Croce) 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 Della Croce, 275 A.D.2d 850, 713 N.Y.S.2d 512, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 16, 1999, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because, inter alia, she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

On its own motion, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reopened claimant’s case for the sole purpose of determining whether there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards set forth in the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899, 1983 US Dist LEXIS 15013, 1983 WL 44294). Finding no substantial procedural violation, the Board adhered to its prior decision finding, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she left her employment without good cause and declined to review the underlying merits of the case. Inasmuch as claimant fails to allege any procedural violations on appeal, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see, Matter of James [Commissioner of Labor], 273 AD2d 523; Matter of Mizzi [Commissioner of Labor], 259 AD2d 825).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, 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 July 16, 1999, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because, inter alia, she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

On its own motion, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reopened claimant’s case for the sole purpose of determining whether there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards set forth in the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899, 1983 US Dist LEXIS 15013, 1983 WL 44294). Finding no substantial procedural violation, the Board adhered to its prior decision finding, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she left her employment without good cause and declined to review the underlying merits of the case. Inasmuch as claimant fails to allege any procedural violations on appeal, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see, Matter of James [Commissioner of Labor], 273 AD2d 523; Matter of Mizzi [Commissioner of Labor], 259 AD2d 825).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 850, 713 N.Y.S.2d 512, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-della-croce-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack