In re the Claim of Paolucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Paolucci

53 A.D.2d 709, 384 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13476

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

DecidedJune 3, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 709 (In re the Claim of Paolucci) 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 Paolucci, 53 A.D.2d 709, 384 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 13, 1976, which amended its prior decision, filed June 30, 1975, and affirmed the decision of a referee holding he was without jurisdiction to rule on the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner because claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely. It is undisputed that claimant received notice of an adverse initial determination by the Industrial Commissioner, but failed to request a hearing thereon until long after the statutory 30-day period for doing so had expired (Labor Law, § 620, subd 1, par [a]). Even as the statute now reads (cf. L 1975, ch 82, § 1), claimant’s proffered excuse was unavailing and the board correctly sustained the referee’s decision that he was without authority to entertain the matter (Matter of Cohen [Levine], 51 AD2d 621; Matter of Merkson [Catherwood], 24 AD2d 675). Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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 January 13, 1976, which amended its prior decision, filed June 30, 1975, and affirmed the decision of a referee holding he was without jurisdiction to rule on the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner because claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely. It is undisputed that claimant received notice of an adverse initial determination by the Industrial Commissioner, but failed to request a hearing thereon until long after the statutory 30-day period for doing so had expired (Labor Law, § 620, subd 1, par [a]). Even as the statute now reads (cf. L 1975, ch 82, § 1), claimant’s proffered excuse was unavailing and the board correctly sustained the referee’s decision that he was without authority to entertain the matter (Matter of Cohen [Levine], 51 AD2d 621; Matter of Merkson [Catherwood], 24 AD2d 675). Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 709, 384 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-paolucci-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack