In re the Claim of Miliadis

278 A.D.2d 654, 718 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13151
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 14, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 654 (In re the Claim of Miliadis) 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 Miliadis, 278 A.D.2d 654, 718 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13151 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 8, 2000, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision dismissing claimant’s appeal from a decision of an Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

By decision dated and mailed September 15, 1999, an Administrative Law Judge ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to [655]*655misconduct. Claimant appealed the decision to the Unemployment Insurance Board on December 6, 1999. A hearing before the Board was held on January 12, 2000 for the purpose of considering, inter alia, the timeliness of claimant’s appeal; however, claimant failed to appear. 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 in a decision filed January 20, 2000. Claimant applied to reopen the Board’s decision and, upon reconsideration, the Board adhered to its prior decision. This appeal followed.

We affirm. Given the evidence in the record and claimant’s failure to appear for the scheduled hearing before the Board, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision dismissing claimant’s appeal as untimely (see, Matter of Lau-Li [Commissioner of Labor], 268 AD2d 655). Accordingly, claimant’s arguments relating to the underlying merits of the denial of her application for unemployment insurance benefits are not properly before this Court (see, Matter of Stock [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 662).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, 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

Related

In re the Claim of Caravan
11 A.D.3d 779 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 A.D.2d 654, 718 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-miliadis-nyappdiv-2000.