In re the Claim of Moorer

40 A.D.3d 1335, 836 N.Y.S.2d 373
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 24, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 1335 (In re the Claim of Moorer) 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 Moorer, 40 A.D.3d 1335, 836 N.Y.S.2d 373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 31, 2006, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision dismissing claimant’s appeal from a decision of an Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

An Administrative Law Judge sustained an initial determination ruling that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed and assessing him a recoverable overpayment of benefits and forfeiture of benefit days based upon willful false statements. Claimant requested an appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which was denied as untimely. Upon reconsideration, the Board adhered to its prior decision. Claimant appeals.

A stamp on the face of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge indicates that it was mailed July 1, 2005. Claimant’s letter appeal was postmarked October 14, 2005. Labor Law § 621 (1) requires that appeals to the Board must be filed within 20 days after the mailing of a notice of decision, and this statute is strictly construed (see Matter of Orologio [Hudacs], 193 AD2d 1042, 1043 [1993]). Although claimant stated at the hearing that he did not receive the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, he did not raise this issue in his brief and it is therefore deemed abandoned (see e.g Matter of Wayne [Commissioner of Labor], 261 AD2d 768, 769 [1999]). Claimant’s attempt to argue the underlying merits of the denial of unemployment insurance benefits is not properly before this Court (see Matter of Lampkin [Commissioner of Labor], 29 AD3d 1248, 1249 [2006]; Matter of Caravan [Commissioner of Labor], 11 AD3d 779, 780 [2004]; Matter of Grunkorn [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d 913, 914 [2004]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, 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 Averett
65 A.D.3d 1436 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Page
65 A.D.3d 722 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Pascarella
59 A.D.3d 835 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Uwaezuoke
57 A.D.3d 1193 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Fattakhov
55 A.D.3d 1205 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Cuccia
55 A.D.3d 1115 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 A.D.3d 1335, 836 N.Y.S.2d 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-moorer-nyappdiv-2007.