In re the Claim of Fairnot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Fairnot

198 A.D.2d 743, 604 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11022

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 743 (In re the Claim of Fairnot) 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 Fairnot, 198 A.D.2d 743, 604 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Cardona, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 8, 1992, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The only reason for reopening claimant’s case was to decide whether there had been compliance with the procedural safe[744]*744guards set forth in the consent judgment of Municipal Labor Comm, v Sitkin (1983, WL 44294 [SD NY, Aug. 1, 1983, Carter, J., 79 Civ 5899]). Once the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that there were no substantial procedural violations, it correctly decided not to reconsider the merits of claimant’s unemployment insurance appeal (see, Matter of Bennett [Hudacs], 187 AD2d 834; Matter of Mizzi [Hartnett], 173 AD2d 1045). On this appeal, claimant fails to allege any procedural errors covered by the terms of the consent judgment. Therefore, the Board’s decision must be upheld.

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Crew III, 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

Cardona, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 8, 1992, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The only reason for reopening claimant’s case was to decide whether there had been compliance with the procedural safe[744]*744guards set forth in the consent judgment of Municipal Labor Comm, v Sitkin (1983, WL 44294 [SD NY, Aug. 1, 1983, Carter, J., 79 Civ 5899]). Once the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that there were no substantial procedural violations, it correctly decided not to reconsider the merits of claimant’s unemployment insurance appeal (see, Matter of Bennett [Hudacs], 187 AD2d 834; Matter of Mizzi [Hartnett], 173 AD2d 1045). On this appeal, claimant fails to allege any procedural errors covered by the terms of the consent judgment. Therefore, the Board’s decision must be upheld.

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 743, 604 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-fairnot-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack