In re the Claim of Hungerford

273 A.D.2d 680, 711 N.Y.S.2d 358, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7191
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 22, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 680 (In re the Claim of Hungerford) 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 Hungerford, 273 A.D.2d 680, 711 N.Y.S.2d 358, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 2, 1999, which dismissed claimant’s appeal from a decision of an Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

By decision dated and mailed on July 9, 1998, an Administrative Law Judge ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment through misconduct in connection therewith. Claimant appealed to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on March 29, 1999. Although two hearings before the Board were scheduled for the purpose of considering the timeliness of claimant’s appeal, claimant failed to appear. Finding that claimant failed to comply with the 20-day filing requirement of Labor Law § 621 (1), the Board dismissed claimant’s appeal. This appeal followed.

We have reviewed claimant’s arguments and, given the evidence in the record and the permissible inferences that can be [681]*681drawn therefrom, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision dismissing claimant’s appeal as untimely (see, Matter of Roper [New York City Dept. of City wide Admin. — Commissioner of Labor], 271 AD2d 737; Matter of Foley [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 712). Accordingly, claimant’s arguments relating to the underlying merits of the denial of his application for unemployment insurance benefits are not properly before this Court (see, Matter of Stock [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 662).

Peters, J. P., Spain, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, 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

Related

In re the Claim of Brightman
3 A.D.3d 780 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 A.D.2d 680, 711 N.Y.S.2d 358, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-hungerford-nyappdiv-2000.