In re the Claim of Hanberry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Hanberry

179 A.D.2d 859, 578 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 73

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 179 A.D.2d 859 (In re the Claim of Hanberry) 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 Hanberry, 179 A.D.2d 859, 578 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 73 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant does not dispute the fact that although the decision of the local unemployment insurance office was mailed to him on March 19, 1990, he did not request a hearing until after the 30-day statutory time period to do so had expired (see, Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]). There was no evidence that [860]*860claimant was in any way prevented from filing a timely request. Under the circumstances, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board correctly sustained the Administrative Law Judge’s determination that she lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits of claimant’s case (see, Matter of Bush [Levine], 53 AD2d 768; Matter of Cohen [Levine] 52 AD2d 695; Matter of Adams [Levine] 51 AD2d 1079; Matter of Montalvo [Levine] 51 AD2d 839).

Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Levine, Crew III and Casey, 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

Claimant does not dispute the fact that although the decision of the local unemployment insurance office was mailed to him on March 19, 1990, he did not request a hearing until after the 30-day statutory time period to do so had expired (see, Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]). There was no evidence that [860]*860claimant was in any way prevented from filing a timely request. Under the circumstances, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board correctly sustained the Administrative Law Judge’s determination that she lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits of claimant’s case (see, Matter of Bush [Levine], 53 AD2d 768; Matter of Cohen [Levine] 52 AD2d 695; Matter of Adams [Levine] 51 AD2d 1079; Matter of Montalvo [Levine] 51 AD2d 839).

Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Levine, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 859, 578 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-hanberry-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack