In re the Claim of James

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of James

273 A.D.2d 523, 709 N.Y.S.2d 455, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6432

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

DecidedJune 8, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 523 (In re the Claim of James) 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 James, 273 A.D.2d 523, 709 N.Y.S.2d 455, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 13, 1998, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

On its own motion, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reopened claimant’s case for the purpose of determining whether there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards set forth in the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899, 1983 WL 44294). Finding no substantial procedural violation, the Board adhered to its prior decision finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment through misconduct and declined to review the merits of the case. Inasmuch as claimant fails to allege any procedural violations on appeal, the Board’s decision must be upheld (see, Matter of Mizzi [Commissioner of Labor], 259 AD2d 825).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 13, 1998, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

On its own motion, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reopened claimant’s case for the purpose of determining whether there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards set forth in the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899, 1983 WL 44294). Finding no substantial procedural violation, the Board adhered to its prior decision finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment through misconduct and declined to review the merits of the case. Inasmuch as claimant fails to allege any procedural violations on appeal, the Board’s decision must be upheld (see, Matter of Mizzi [Commissioner of Labor], 259 AD2d 825).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 523, 709 N.Y.S.2d 455, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-james-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack