In re the Claim of London

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of London

250 A.D.2d 908, 672 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5346

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 7, 1998·Published

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 10, 1997, which, inter alia, rescinded the decision of the Administrative Law Judge and remitted the matter for further development of the record.

Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter the ALJ) determined that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct. Upon appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, the Board rescinded the ALJ’s decision and remitted the matter for further hearings for the purpose of, inter alia, allowing claimant to subpoena certain documents. Claimant appeals the Board’s [909] decision and we affirm. There is no question that the Board is empowered to remit a case “for such purposes as it may direct” (Labor Law § 621 [3]; see, Matter of Huntt [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 644; Matter of Dialogue Sys. [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 756). Based upon our review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion by the Board and, further, we find no reason to address the underlying merits of the ALJ’s decision that was rescinded by the Board (see, Matter of Dialogue Sys. [Sweeney], supra, at 757).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Peters and Spain, 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—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 10, 1997, which, inter alia, rescinded the decision of the Administrative Law Judge and remitted the matter for further development of the record.

Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter the ALJ) determined that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct. Upon appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, the Board rescinded the ALJ’s decision and remitted the matter for further hearings for the purpose of, inter alia, allowing claimant to subpoena certain documents. Claimant appeals the Board’s [909] decision and we affirm. There is no question that the Board is empowered to remit a case “for such purposes as it may direct” (Labor Law § 621 [3]; see, Matter of Huntt [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 644; Matter of Dialogue Sys. [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 756). Based upon our review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion by the Board and, further, we find no reason to address the underlying merits of the ALJ’s decision that was rescinded by the Board (see, Matter of Dialogue Sys. [Sweeney], supra, at 757).

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

In re the Claim of London, 250 A.D.2d 908, 672 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

250 A.D.2d 908 (In re the Claim of London) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related