In re the Claim of Henry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Henry

20 A.D.3d 656, 798 N.Y.S.2d 206, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7609

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

DecidedJuly 7, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 A.D.3d 656 (In re the Claim of Henry) 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 Henry, 20 A.D.3d 656, 798 N.Y.S.2d 206, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[657]*657Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 22, 2004, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

On January 27, 2000, the Department of Labor mailed notices of determination to claimant, finding him ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits between November 9, 1998 and December 6, 1998 on the basis that he was not totally unemployed, charging him with a recoverable overpayment and reducing his right to receive future benefits on the basis that he made willful misrepresentations. Claimant did not receive these notices at the time they were mailed because he was living in a homeless shelter. He did, however, receive them on March 28, 2001 when they were forwarded to his new apartment. Despite information on the notices indicating that he had 30 days to request a hearing, he did not request one until September 15, 2003, over two years later. The Commissioner of Labor objected to claimant’s request for a hearing as untimely. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately sustained the timeliness objection and upheld the findings made in the notices of determination. It adhered to this decision upon reconsideration. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. It is undisputed that claimant did not request a hearing within the 30-day statutory period (see Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]). He stated that he waited to make this request until he was more financially stable. Inasmuch as claimant failed to present a reasonable excuse for his delay in requesting a hearing, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Shell [Commissioner of Labor], 16 AD3d 940 [2005]; Matter of Tobar [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 651 [2003]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Feters, Mugglin and Kane, 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

[657]*657Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 22, 2004, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

On January 27, 2000, the Department of Labor mailed notices of determination to claimant, finding him ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits between November 9, 1998 and December 6, 1998 on the basis that he was not totally unemployed, charging him with a recoverable overpayment and reducing his right to receive future benefits on the basis that he made willful misrepresentations. Claimant did not receive these notices at the time they were mailed because he was living in a homeless shelter. He did, however, receive them on March 28, 2001 when they were forwarded to his new apartment. Despite information on the notices indicating that he had 30 days to request a hearing, he did not request one until September 15, 2003, over two years later. The Commissioner of Labor objected to claimant’s request for a hearing as untimely. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately sustained the timeliness objection and upheld the findings made in the notices of determination. It adhered to this decision upon reconsideration. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. It is undisputed that claimant did not request a hearing within the 30-day statutory period (see Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]). He stated that he waited to make this request until he was more financially stable. Inasmuch as claimant failed to present a reasonable excuse for his delay in requesting a hearing, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Shell [Commissioner of Labor], 16 AD3d 940 [2005]; Matter of Tobar [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 651 [2003]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Feters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.3d 656, 798 N.Y.S.2d 206, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-henry-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack