In re the Claim of Miles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Miles

210 A.D.2d 714, 621 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12757

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 714 (In re the Claim of Miles) 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 Miles, 210 A.D.2d 714, 621 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment [715]*715Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 24, 1993, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination that claimant did not request a hearing until after the 30-day statutory time period had expired. Significantly, claimant admitted receiving the applicable notice of determination and presented no convincing evidence that she was prevented from filing a timely request. Under the circumstances, the conclusion that her request was untimely was in all respects proper.

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 [715]*715Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 24, 1993, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination that claimant did not request a hearing until after the 30-day statutory time period had expired. Significantly, claimant admitted receiving the applicable notice of determination and presented no convincing evidence that she was prevented from filing a timely request. Under the circumstances, the conclusion that her request was untimely was in all respects proper.

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)

210 A.D.2d 714, 621 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-miles-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack