In re the Claim of Lipford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Lipford

268 A.D.2d 658, 701 N.Y.S.2d 469, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 113

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 658 (In re the Claim of Lipford) 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 Lipford, 268 A.D.2d 658, 701 N.Y.S.2d 469, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 24, 1999, which dismissed claimant’s appeal from a decision of an Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

By decision dated and mailed on February 7, 1996, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) ruled, inter alla, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on January 14, 1999 and, in a statement accompanying her notice of appeal, stated that she “did not request an appeal sooner because I had gone back to work”. A hearing before the Board was then held for the purpose of considering the timeliness of claimant’s appeal. Claimant testified that she did not remember receiving the ALJ’s decision but she did know that she lost her case and [659]*659that she had 20 days to appeal therefrom. She stated that she did not appeal sooner because of personal turmoil and the fact that she found another job. Inasmuch as it appeared that claimant failed to comply with the 20-day filing requirement of Labor Law § 621 (1), the Board dismissed claimant’s appeal. This appeal followed.

We have reviewed claimant’s arguments and, given the evidence in the record and the permissible inferences that can be drawn therefrom, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision dismissing claimant’s appeal as untimely (see, Matter of Foley [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 712; Matter of Speed [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 807). Thus, claimant’s arguments relating to the underlying merits of the denial of her application for unemployment insurance benefits are not properly before this Court for consideration (see, Matter of Stock [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 662).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, Spain 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 March 24, 1999, which dismissed claimant’s appeal from a decision of an Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

By decision dated and mailed on February 7, 1996, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) ruled, inter alla, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on January 14, 1999 and, in a statement accompanying her notice of appeal, stated that she “did not request an appeal sooner because I had gone back to work”. A hearing before the Board was then held for the purpose of considering the timeliness of claimant’s appeal. Claimant testified that she did not remember receiving the ALJ’s decision but she did know that she lost her case and [659]*659that she had 20 days to appeal therefrom. She stated that she did not appeal sooner because of personal turmoil and the fact that she found another job. Inasmuch as it appeared that claimant failed to comply with the 20-day filing requirement of Labor Law § 621 (1), the Board dismissed claimant’s appeal. This appeal followed.

We have reviewed claimant’s arguments and, given the evidence in the record and the permissible inferences that can be drawn therefrom, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision dismissing claimant’s appeal as untimely (see, Matter of Foley [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 712; Matter of Speed [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 807). Thus, claimant’s arguments relating to the underlying merits of the denial of her application for unemployment insurance benefits are not properly before this Court for consideration (see, Matter of Stock [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 662).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 658, 701 N.Y.S.2d 469, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-lipford-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack