In re the Claim of Jarrett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Jarrett

13 A.D.3d 965, 787 N.Y.S.2d 448, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15856

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 965 (In re the Claim of Jarrett) 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 Jarrett, 13 A.D.3d 965, 787 N.Y.S.2d 448, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 5, 2003, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

By notice of determination mailed July 1, 2003, claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that his employment was terminated due to misconduct. On August 5, 2003, he requested a hearing. Upon finding that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely, an Administrative Law Judge upheld the initial determination. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this decision, resulting in this appeal.

Initially, we note that, pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), a party dissatisfied with an initial determination has a right to a hearing, provided such request is made within 30 days of the date the initial determination was mailed (see Matter of Brown [Commissioner of Labor], 4 AD3d 604 [2004]; Matter of Tobar [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 651 [2003]). Here, the initial determination was mailed on July 1, 2003 and received by claimant a few days thereafter, yet claimant admitted that he did not mail his request for a hearing until August 5, 2003 because he was seeking legal counsel regarding the strength of his case. Claimant’s assertion that a representative from the Department of Labor informed him that he had until August 8, 2003 to request a hearing presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Brown [Commissioner of Labor], supra). Inasmuch as claimant did not demonstrate that he suffered from a mental or physical incapacity that precluded him from making his request within the 30-day period (see Matter of Diaz [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d 1024 [2004]), we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Feters, Spain and Carpinello, 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 December 5, 2003, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

By notice of determination mailed July 1, 2003, claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that his employment was terminated due to misconduct. On August 5, 2003, he requested a hearing. Upon finding that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely, an Administrative Law Judge upheld the initial determination. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this decision, resulting in this appeal.

Initially, we note that, pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), a party dissatisfied with an initial determination has a right to a hearing, provided such request is made within 30 days of the date the initial determination was mailed (see Matter of Brown [Commissioner of Labor], 4 AD3d 604 [2004]; Matter of Tobar [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 651 [2003]). Here, the initial determination was mailed on July 1, 2003 and received by claimant a few days thereafter, yet claimant admitted that he did not mail his request for a hearing until August 5, 2003 because he was seeking legal counsel regarding the strength of his case. Claimant’s assertion that a representative from the Department of Labor informed him that he had until August 8, 2003 to request a hearing presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Brown [Commissioner of Labor], supra). Inasmuch as claimant did not demonstrate that he suffered from a mental or physical incapacity that precluded him from making his request within the 30-day period (see Matter of Diaz [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d 1024 [2004]), we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 965, 787 N.Y.S.2d 448, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-jarrett-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack