In re the Claim of Liposki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Liposki

284 A.D.2d 819, 726 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6840

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

DecidedJune 28, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 819 (In re the Claim of Liposki) 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 Liposki, 284 A.D.2d 819, 726 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6840 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 14, 2000, which denied the employer’s application for reconsideration of a prior decision ruling that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

The underlying facts are fully set forth in our prior decision in this matter, wherein we reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision affirming a February 1996 decision of an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ), who determined that claimant was entitled to benefits (261 AD2d 665). In remitting this matter to the Board, we directed that the most recent of claimant’s three former employers, the Plaza Hotel, send an employee or representative to appear at an administrative hearing to testify as to the circumstances surrounding claimant’s termination. At the ensuing hearing, a representative of the Plaza Hotel indeed appeared and provided the minutes from the meeting at which claimant was terminated. Based upon the additional testimony and evidence [820]*820provided at this hearing, the Board thereafter affirmed the ALJ’s February 1996 decision. Citifloral, Inc., one of claimant’s former employers, now appeals, contending that the Board did not comply with this Court’s prior decision.

*

The record reflects that Citifloral failed to raise any of the objections now pressed on appeal at the underlying hearing. Specifically, Citifloral raised no objection to the Board’s apparent failure to issue a subpoena (see, Matter of Halper [Commissioner of Labor], 251 AD2d 875, 876), the appearance by the representative of the Plaza Hotel, the documentary evidence offered by such witness or the overall manner in which the hearing was conducted. In short, having expressed nothing more than a desire to “finish” this matter, Citifloral cannot now be heard to complain.

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

As a prior employer, Citifloral was charged with a portion of the benefits initially awarded to claimant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 14, 2000, which denied the employer’s application for reconsideration of a prior decision ruling that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

The underlying facts are fully set forth in our prior decision in this matter, wherein we reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision affirming a February 1996 decision of an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ), who determined that claimant was entitled to benefits (261 AD2d 665). In remitting this matter to the Board, we directed that the most recent of claimant’s three former employers, the Plaza Hotel, send an employee or representative to appear at an administrative hearing to testify as to the circumstances surrounding claimant’s termination. At the ensuing hearing, a representative of the Plaza Hotel indeed appeared and provided the minutes from the meeting at which claimant was terminated. Based upon the additional testimony and evidence [820]*820provided at this hearing, the Board thereafter affirmed the ALJ’s February 1996 decision. Citifloral, Inc., one of claimant’s former employers, now appeals, contending that the Board did not comply with this Court’s prior decision.

*

The record reflects that Citifloral failed to raise any of the objections now pressed on appeal at the underlying hearing. Specifically, Citifloral raised no objection to the Board’s apparent failure to issue a subpoena (see, Matter of Halper [Commissioner of Labor], 251 AD2d 875, 876), the appearance by the representative of the Plaza Hotel, the documentary evidence offered by such witness or the overall manner in which the hearing was conducted. In short, having expressed nothing more than a desire to “finish” this matter, Citifloral cannot now be heard to complain.

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

As a prior employer, Citifloral was charged with a portion of the benefits initially awarded to claimant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 819, 726 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-liposki-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack