In re the Claim of Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Miller

67 A.D.3d 1246, 888 N.Y.S.2d 444

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 67 A.D.3d 1246 (In re the Claim of Miller) 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 Miller, 67 A.D.3d 1246, 888 N.Y.S.2d 444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 9, 2008, which denied claimant’s application to reopen and reconsider a prior decision.

When this matter was last before us, this Court affirmed a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 17, 2007, which, upon reconsideration, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to his being discharged from his employment because of misconduct (50 AD3d 1432 [2008]). Claimant thereafter unsuccessfully sought to reopen the Board’s prior decision and this appeal ensued.

“Whether to grant an application to reopen a decision is within the discretion of the Board and, absent a showing that the Board abused its discretion, its decision will not be disturbed” (Matter of Kendricks [Commissioner of Labor], 1 AD3d 682, 682-683 [2003] [citation omitted]; accord Matter of Maymi [Commissioner of Labor], 42 AD3d 845, 846 [2007]). Inasmuch as claimant alleges no abuse of discretion, there is no basis to disturb the Board’s decision denying his application to reopen (see Matter of Wood [Commissioner of Labor], 24 AD3d 854 [2005]; Matter of Petrillo [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 666, 667 [2003]). Furthermore, claimant’s attempt to reargue the merits of the underlying determination are not properly before this Court.

Cardona, P.J, Mercure, Spain, Kane and Garry, 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 September 9, 2008, which denied claimant’s application to reopen and reconsider a prior decision.

When this matter was last before us, this Court affirmed a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 17, 2007, which, upon reconsideration, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to his being discharged from his employment because of misconduct (50 AD3d 1432 [2008]). Claimant thereafter unsuccessfully sought to reopen the Board’s prior decision and this appeal ensued.

“Whether to grant an application to reopen a decision is within the discretion of the Board and, absent a showing that the Board abused its discretion, its decision will not be disturbed” (Matter of Kendricks [Commissioner of Labor], 1 AD3d 682, 682-683 [2003] [citation omitted]; accord Matter of Maymi [Commissioner of Labor], 42 AD3d 845, 846 [2007]). Inasmuch as claimant alleges no abuse of discretion, there is no basis to disturb the Board’s decision denying his application to reopen (see Matter of Wood [Commissioner of Labor], 24 AD3d 854 [2005]; Matter of Petrillo [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 666, 667 [2003]). Furthermore, claimant’s attempt to reargue the merits of the underlying determination are not properly before this Court.

Cardona, P.J, Mercure, Spain, Kane and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 1246, 888 N.Y.S.2d 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-miller-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack