In re the Claim of Michelsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Michelsen

252 A.D.2d 647, 675 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8073

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D.2d 647 (In re the Claim of Michelsen) 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 Michelsen, 252 A.D.2d 647, 675 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 17, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from his employment as a hospital [648]*648porter for insubordination. The local unemployment office awarded claimant unemployment insurance benefits but, following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because the insubordination amounted to misconduct. The ALJ’s decision, however, conflicted with the ruling and stated that the local unemployment office’s determination “is sustained”. At the employer’s request, another ALJ corrected this ministerial error and issued a revised decision stating that, inter alia, “[t]he initial determination of the local office is overruled”. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board sustained the revised decision and we affirm. Contrary to claimant’s contention, the employer’s request to revise the language of the decision to conform to the ruling cannot be characterized as an appeal. Therefore, the request was not subject to the timeliness provisions of Labor Law § 621 (2). We have reviewed the remaining arguments advanced by claimant, including the claim that he was denied the opportunity to call a particular witness, and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 17, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from his employment as a hospital [648]*648porter for insubordination. The local unemployment office awarded claimant unemployment insurance benefits but, following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because the insubordination amounted to misconduct. The ALJ’s decision, however, conflicted with the ruling and stated that the local unemployment office’s determination “is sustained”. At the employer’s request, another ALJ corrected this ministerial error and issued a revised decision stating that, inter alia, “[t]he initial determination of the local office is overruled”. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board sustained the revised decision and we affirm. Contrary to claimant’s contention, the employer’s request to revise the language of the decision to conform to the ruling cannot be characterized as an appeal. Therefore, the request was not subject to the timeliness provisions of Labor Law § 621 (2). We have reviewed the remaining arguments advanced by claimant, including the claim that he was denied the opportunity to call a particular witness, and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 647, 675 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-michelsen-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack