In re the Claim of Dudley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Dudley

247 A.D.2d 815, 668 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1879

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 815 (In re the Claim of Dudley) 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 Dudley, 247 A.D.2d 815, 668 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 24, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant’s application for a hearing was untimely.

Claimant was found to be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she had left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons. Substantial evidence supports the ruling of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant’s subsequent request for a review hearing was untimely, pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), with the result that the Commissioner’s initial determination would not be disturbed. Claimant conceded that she had received the applicable notice of determination and she presented no persuasive evidence that she was prevented from filing a timely request for a hearing. Under the circumstances presented here, we affirm the Board’s ruling, including its additional provision that claimant had presented no proof of intervening employment that would render her eligible for benefits since the Commissioner’s initial ruling (see, Matter of Miles [Hudacs], 210 AD2d 714).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Carpinello, 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 24, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant’s application for a hearing was untimely.

Claimant was found to be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she had left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons. Substantial evidence supports the ruling of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant’s subsequent request for a review hearing was untimely, pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), with the result that the Commissioner’s initial determination would not be disturbed. Claimant conceded that she had received the applicable notice of determination and she presented no persuasive evidence that she was prevented from filing a timely request for a hearing. Under the circumstances presented here, we affirm the Board’s ruling, including its additional provision that claimant had presented no proof of intervening employment that would render her eligible for benefits since the Commissioner’s initial ruling (see, Matter of Miles [Hudacs], 210 AD2d 714).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 815, 668 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-dudley-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack