In re the Claim of Diamond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Diamond

50 A.D.2d 648, 375 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12472

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 13, 1975·Published

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 23, 1974, which adopted and affirmed a referee’s decision which held that the claimant had failed to timely seek review of the Industrial Commissioner’s initial determination. Pursuant to subdivision 1 of section 620 of the Labor Law, a claimant has a period of 30 days to seek review of an adverse initial determination from the time when it was duly mailed to him. The claimant herein did not request a hearing for a year after such an initial mailing. It has been held that a failure to timely request a hearing jurisdictionally precludes a review of an initial determination (Matter of Mack [Cather-wood], 28 AD2d 1020; Matter of Perez [Catherwood], 24 AD2d 776; Matter of Merkson [Catherwood], 24 AD2d 675). The present record does not disclose that notice by mailing is constitutionally defective. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Main and Larkin, JJ., concur.

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 August 23, 1974, which adopted and affirmed a referee’s decision which held that the claimant had failed to timely seek review of the Industrial Commissioner’s initial determination. Pursuant to subdivision 1 of section 620 of the Labor Law, a claimant has a period of 30 days to seek review of an adverse initial determination from the time when it was duly mailed to him. The claimant herein did not request a hearing for a year after such an initial mailing. It has been held that a failure to timely request a hearing jurisdictionally precludes a review of an initial determination (Matter of Mack [Cather-wood], 28 AD2d 1020; Matter of Perez [Catherwood], 24 AD2d 776; Matter of Merkson [Catherwood], 24 AD2d 675). The present record does not disclose that notice by mailing is constitutionally defective. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Main and Larkin, JJ., concur.

In re the Claim of Diamond, 50 A.D.2d 648, 375 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12472 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

50 A.D.2d 648 (In re the Claim of Diamond) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related