In re the Claim of Palmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Palmer

250 A.D.2d 914, 672 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5381

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 7, 1998·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 8, 1997, which ruled that claimant’s application for a hearing was untimely.

Claimant received respondent’s notice of determination, dated and mailed October 3, 1996, informing her of her ineligibility to receive additional benefits under Labor Law § 599. Although she spoke to the local office on a number of occasions by telephone in response to the notice, claimant did not request a review hearing before an Administrative Law Judge until March 3, 1997, over four months beyond the 30-day limitations period within which she was required by statute to make such a request (see, Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]). There is no evidence that this delay was the result of any “physical condition or mental incapacity” on claimant’s part (Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]; see, Matter of Gomez [Sweeney], 219 AD2d 767) nor has she offered any other valid excuse for the delay in filing (see, Matter of Ascenzo [Sweeney], 216 AD2d 659, 660). We conclude that the determination of untimeliness by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board should not be disturbed (see, Matter of Rounds [Sweeney], 220 AD2d 921, lv denied 87 NY2d 811).

Mercure, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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 8, 1997, which ruled that claimant’s application for a hearing was untimely.

Claimant received respondent’s notice of determination, dated and mailed October 3, 1996, informing her of her ineligibility to receive additional benefits under Labor Law § 599. Although she spoke to the local office on a number of occasions by telephone in response to the notice, claimant did not request a review hearing before an Administrative Law Judge until March 3, 1997, over four months beyond the 30-day limitations period within which she was required by statute to make such a request (see, Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]). There is no evidence that this delay was the result of any “physical condition or mental incapacity” on claimant’s part (Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]; see, Matter of Gomez [Sweeney], 219 AD2d 767) nor has she offered any other valid excuse for the delay in filing (see, Matter of Ascenzo [Sweeney], 216 AD2d 659, 660). We conclude that the determination of untimeliness by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board should not be disturbed (see, Matter of Rounds [Sweeney], 220 AD2d 921, lv denied 87 NY2d 811).

Mercure, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

In re the Claim of Palmer, 250 A.D.2d 914, 672 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

250 A.D.2d 914 (In re the Claim of Palmer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related