In re the Claim of Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Hill

113 A.D.3d 1015, 979 N.Y.2d 428

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.3d 1015 (In re the Claim of Hill) 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 Hill, 113 A.D.3d 1015, 979 N.Y.2d 428 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

We affirm. Pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), a claimant who is dissatisfied with an initial determination concerning unemployment insurance benefits has 30 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to request a hearing, unless prevented from doing so due to physical or mental incapacity (see Matter of Randell [Commissioner of Labor], 105 AD3d 1243, 1243 [2013]; Matter of Hoose [Commissioner of Labor], 102 AD3d 1031, 1031 [2013])- Here, claimant did not request a hearing within 30 days of the mailing of the Department’s initial determination in 2002. Her proffered excuse was that she never received the determination. She admittedly resided at the address where the determination was mailed during part of 2002, but she testified that she moved during the year and could not recall where she was residing at the time of the mailing. Notably, there is nothing in the record to indicate that she informed the Department of a change of address during this time period. In our view, claimant has not proffered an acceptable excuse for not making a timely request for a hearing (see Matter of Desani [Commissioner of Labor], 78 AD3d 1403, 1403 [2010]; Matter of [1016]*1016Davis [Commissioner of Labor], 76 AD3d 1136, 1136 [2010]), and the Board’s decision will not be disturbed.

Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, McCarthy and Egan Jr., 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

We affirm. Pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), a claimant who is dissatisfied with an initial determination concerning unemployment insurance benefits has 30 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to request a hearing, unless prevented from doing so due to physical or mental incapacity (see Matter of Randell [Commissioner of Labor], 105 AD3d 1243, 1243 [2013]; Matter of Hoose [Commissioner of Labor], 102 AD3d 1031, 1031 [2013])- Here, claimant did not request a hearing within 30 days of the mailing of the Department’s initial determination in 2002. Her proffered excuse was that she never received the determination. She admittedly resided at the address where the determination was mailed during part of 2002, but she testified that she moved during the year and could not recall where she was residing at the time of the mailing. Notably, there is nothing in the record to indicate that she informed the Department of a change of address during this time period. In our view, claimant has not proffered an acceptable excuse for not making a timely request for a hearing (see Matter of Desani [Commissioner of Labor], 78 AD3d 1403, 1403 [2010]; Matter of [1016]*1016Davis [Commissioner of Labor], 76 AD3d 1136, 1136 [2010]), and the Board’s decision will not be disturbed.

Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 1015, 979 N.Y.2d 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-hill-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack