In re the Claim of Mizzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Mizzi

259 A.D.2d 825, 687 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2093

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 825 (In re the Claim of Mizzi) 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 Mizzi, 259 A.D.2d 825, 687 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2093 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 20, 1998, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision reducing claimant’s weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate.

On its own motion, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reopened claimant’s case for the purpose of determining whether there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards set forth in the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899, 1983 WL 44294). Finding no substantial procedural violation, the Board adhered to its [826]*826prior decision reducing claimant’s weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate and declined to review the merits of the case. Inasmuch as claimant fails to allege any procedural violations on appeal, the Board’s decision must be upheld (see, Matter of Gandhi [Sweeney], 227 AD2d 722, 723).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Carpinello, 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 July 20, 1998, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision reducing claimant’s weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate.

On its own motion, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reopened claimant’s case for the purpose of determining whether there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards set forth in the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899, 1983 WL 44294). Finding no substantial procedural violation, the Board adhered to its [826]*826prior decision reducing claimant’s weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate and declined to review the merits of the case. Inasmuch as claimant fails to allege any procedural violations on appeal, the Board’s decision must be upheld (see, Matter of Gandhi [Sweeney], 227 AD2d 722, 723).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 825, 687 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-mizzi-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack