In re the Claim of Lang

9 A.D.3d 648, 778 N.Y.S.2d 926, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9452
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 8, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 9 A.D.3d 648 (In re the Claim of Lang) 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 Lang, 9 A.D.3d 648, 778 N.Y.S.2d 926, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 25, 2003, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he failed to comply with the registration requirements.

Claimant lost his employment on April 2, 2002, but failed to apply for unemployment insurance benefits until June 26, 2002 due to the belief that his workers’ compensation claim precluded him from applying for unemployment insurance benefits. The [649]*649Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits effective April 3, 2002 until June 24, 2002 because he failed to comply with the registration requirements. While ‘‘[c]ertifying for benefits in accordance with the Labor Law and the applicable regulations is a necessary prerequisite to eligibility for benefits” (Matter of Prieto [Commissioner of Labor], 255 AD2d 859, 860 [1998]), deficiencies can be excused for good cause (see Matter of Chen [Commissioner of Labor], 307 AD2d 580 [2003]; Matter of Rosado [Commissioner of Labor], 275 AD2d 848 [2000]). Here, claimant received no misinformation from nor made any attempt to contact the local unemployment insurance office regarding his eligibility to file a claim for benefits. Under these circumstances, the Board’s decision will not be disturbed.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, 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

In re the Claim of Weinstein
60 A.D.3d 1228 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Troise
45 A.D.3d 1163 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re the Claim of Fleischer
45 A.D.3d 1094 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re the Claim of Newman
23 A.D.3d 816 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Paterson
14 A.D.3d 751 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Nocera
12 A.D.3d 769 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 A.D.3d 648, 778 N.Y.S.2d 926, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-lang-nyappdiv-2004.