In re the Claim of Pasquale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Pasquale

243 A.D.2d 796, 665 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9678

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 796 (In re the Claim of Pasquale) 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 Pasquale, 243 A.D.2d 796, 665 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 27, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision which found that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely and continued the initial determination disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant admitted that he had received the notice of determination dated March 27, 1992 informing him that he had been determined to be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he had refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause and that he was aware that he had 30 days to request a hearing. Claimant did not request a hearing until January 18, 1994, well beyond the 30-day limitations period (see, Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]). Claimant offered no proof that his physical or mental condition prevented him from filing a timely request (see, Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]) and his explanation for his late action raised a credibility issue for the Board to resolve. In view of the foregoing, the Board’s decision should be affirmed (see, Matter of Rodriguez [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 734; Matter of Hagues [Hudacs], 194 AD2d 1052). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Casey, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Peters, Spain 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 August 27, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision which found that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely and continued the initial determination disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant admitted that he had received the notice of determination dated March 27, 1992 informing him that he had been determined to be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he had refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause and that he was aware that he had 30 days to request a hearing. Claimant did not request a hearing until January 18, 1994, well beyond the 30-day limitations period (see, Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]). Claimant offered no proof that his physical or mental condition prevented him from filing a timely request (see, Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]) and his explanation for his late action raised a credibility issue for the Board to resolve. In view of the foregoing, the Board’s decision should be affirmed (see, Matter of Rodriguez [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 734; Matter of Hagues [Hudacs], 194 AD2d 1052). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 796, 665 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-pasquale-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack