In re the Claim of Hendrickson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Hendrickson

210 A.D.2d 719, 621 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12766

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 719 (In re the Claim of Hendrickson) 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 Hendrickson, 210 A.D.2d 719, 621 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 28, 1993, which dismissed claimant’s appeal from a decision of an Administrative Law Judge.

In dismissing the appeal, the Board noted that it had been processed through inadvertence and that there had been no actual request for an appeal; rather, claimant had applied to reopen the decision of an Administrative Law Judge denying his claim for unemployment insurance benefits. The Board did not reopen the hearing, however, noting that claimant had been offered five opportunities to testify but had failed to appear. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Board abused its discretion by not reopening the hearing.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the décision 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 December 28, 1993, which dismissed claimant’s appeal from a decision of an Administrative Law Judge.

In dismissing the appeal, the Board noted that it had been processed through inadvertence and that there had been no actual request for an appeal; rather, claimant had applied to reopen the decision of an Administrative Law Judge denying his claim for unemployment insurance benefits. The Board did not reopen the hearing, however, noting that claimant had been offered five opportunities to testify but had failed to appear. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Board abused its discretion by not reopening the hearing.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the décision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 719, 621 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-hendrickson-nyappdiv-1994.