In re the Claim of Jiminez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Jiminez

242 A.D.2d 769, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8518

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

DecidedSeptember 4, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 769 (In re the Claim of Jiminez) 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 Jiminez, 242 A.D.2d 769, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment In[770]*770sur anee Appeal Board, filed March 7, 1996, which charged claimant with a recoverable overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s assessment of a $10,500 recoverable overpayment is supported by substantial evidence given an Administrative Law Judge’s prior decision finding claimant ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was unavailable for work (see, Labor Law § 597 [4]). To the extent that claimant attempts to argue the merits of the prior decision finding him ineligible to receive benefits, we note that such issue is not properly before this Court inasmuch as the Board dismissed petitioner’s appeal from the Administrative Law Judge’s decision as untimely.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Peters and Spain, 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 In[770]*770sur anee Appeal Board, filed March 7, 1996, which charged claimant with a recoverable overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s assessment of a $10,500 recoverable overpayment is supported by substantial evidence given an Administrative Law Judge’s prior decision finding claimant ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was unavailable for work (see, Labor Law § 597 [4]). To the extent that claimant attempts to argue the merits of the prior decision finding him ineligible to receive benefits, we note that such issue is not properly before this Court inasmuch as the Board dismissed petitioner’s appeal from the Administrative Law Judge’s decision as untimely.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 769, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-jiminez-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack