In re the Claim of Kilgore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Kilgore

251 A.D.2d 731, 672 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6495

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 4, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 6, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant failed to appeal the decision of an Administrative Law Judge disqualifying her from receiving benefits within the 20-day limitations period mandated by Labor Law § 621 (1). There is no dispute that the ALJ’s decision was mailed to claimant on October 7, 1996 or that claimant contested the decision by letter dated November 10, 1996. We cannot say that the Board exceeded its authority by failing to credit claimant’s explanation for the delay (see, Matter of Barago [Hudacs], 207 AD2d 930). Consequently, the Board’s decision will not be disturbed.

Crew III, J. P., White, Yesawich Jr., Peters 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 January 6, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant failed to appeal the decision of an Administrative Law Judge disqualifying her from receiving benefits within the 20-day limitations period mandated by Labor Law § 621 (1). There is no dispute that the ALJ’s decision was mailed to claimant on October 7, 1996 or that claimant contested the decision by letter dated November 10, 1996. We cannot say that the Board exceeded its authority by failing to credit claimant’s explanation for the delay (see, Matter of Barago [Hudacs], 207 AD2d 930). Consequently, the Board’s decision will not be disturbed.

Crew III, J. P., White, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

In re the Claim of Kilgore, 251 A.D.2d 731, 672 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

251 A.D.2d 731 (In re the Claim of Kilgore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related