In re the Claim of Kraft

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Kraft

260 A.D.2d 885, 688 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4216

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

DecidedApril 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 885 (In re the Claim of Kraft) 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 Kraft, 260 A.D.2d 885, 688 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 19, 1998, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely (see, Matter of McGee [Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 710, Iv denied 93 NY2d 803). Claimant admitted that he received and read two determinations dated August 21, 1997 from the local unemployment insurance office informing him that, inter alia, he was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed during the time periods at issue. Although both determinations notified claimant of his right to request a hearing not later than 30 days from the date of the notices, he failed to request a hearing until December 5, 1997, claiming that he “thought [he] had a lot of time”. The record reveals no evidence supporting a reasonable excuse which prevented claimant from requesting a hearing within the 30-day time period provided by Labor Law § 620 (1) (a) (see, Matter of Dugan [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 706; Matter of Vaknin [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 771). Based on this record, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, 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 February 19, 1998, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely (see, Matter of McGee [Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 710, Iv denied 93 NY2d 803). Claimant admitted that he received and read two determinations dated August 21, 1997 from the local unemployment insurance office informing him that, inter alia, he was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed during the time periods at issue. Although both determinations notified claimant of his right to request a hearing not later than 30 days from the date of the notices, he failed to request a hearing until December 5, 1997, claiming that he “thought [he] had a lot of time”. The record reveals no evidence supporting a reasonable excuse which prevented claimant from requesting a hearing within the 30-day time period provided by Labor Law § 620 (1) (a) (see, Matter of Dugan [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 706; Matter of Vaknin [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 771). Based on this record, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 885, 688 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-kraft-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack