In re the Claim of Kendricks

1 A.D.2d 682, 766 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1 A.D.3d 682, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11590
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 6, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 682 (In re the Claim of Kendricks) 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 Kendricks, 1 A.D.2d 682, 766 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1 A.D.3d 682, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 27, 2002, which denied claimant’s application to reopen its prior decision.

Claimant appeals from the denial of her application to reopen and reconsider a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board dated December 5, 2001 ruling that she was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Whether to grant an application to reopen a decision is within the discre[683]*683tion of the Board and, absent a showing that the Board abused its discretion, its decision will not be disturbed (see Matter of Jackson [Commissioner of Labor], 306 AD2d 604 [2003]). Here, in support of her application to reopen, claimant offered no new evidence which was not before the Board on her initial application to reopen. Furthermore, the record belies her assertion that she was denied the right to cross-examine the employer’s witness. Finally, claimant’s attempts to argue the merits of the underlying determination denying her application for unemployment insurance benefits are not properly before this Court inasmuch as claimant failed to perfect her appeal therefrom.

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, 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

Matter of Brill (Commissioner of Labor)
2019 NY Slip Op 6660 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Raissi (Commissioner of Labor)
2019 NY Slip Op 4077 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
In re the Claim of Miller
67 A.D.3d 1246 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Spencer
49 A.D.3d 1047 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Maymi
42 A.D.3d 845 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re Chanthyasack
37 A.D.3d 963 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re Wood
24 A.D.3d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Hardamon
17 A.D.3d 764 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 A.D.2d 682, 766 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1 A.D.3d 682, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-kendricks-nyappdiv-2003.