In re the Claim of Gomez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Gomez

219 A.D.2d 767, 631 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9280

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

DecidedSeptember 14, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 767 (In re the Claim of Gomez) 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 Gomez, 219 A.D.2d 767, 631 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 17, 1995, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

The evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that he lacked the authority to hear claimant’s case because she failed to timely request a hearing. Claimant admitted that she received copies of the decisions of the local unemployment insurance office finding that she was ineligible to receive benefits and that she understood that she had 30 days to request a hearing. Her request for a hearing was, however, made after the expiration of that time period. Although claimant contended that the late filing was due to her being ill, she admitted that she was not in bed or in the hospital. The record also reveals that claimant continued to perform most of her daily activities. Claimant’s remaining arguments have been considered and rejected for lack of merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. 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 February 17, 1995, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

The evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that he lacked the authority to hear claimant’s case because she failed to timely request a hearing. Claimant admitted that she received copies of the decisions of the local unemployment insurance office finding that she was ineligible to receive benefits and that she understood that she had 30 days to request a hearing. Her request for a hearing was, however, made after the expiration of that time period. Although claimant contended that the late filing was due to her being ill, she admitted that she was not in bed or in the hospital. The record also reveals that claimant continued to perform most of her daily activities. Claimant’s remaining arguments have been considered and rejected for lack of merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 767, 631 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-gomez-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack