In re the Claim of Perillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Perillo

166 A.D.2d 863, 563 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12826

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 863 (In re the Claim of Perillo) 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 Perillo, 166 A.D.2d 863, 563 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 18, 1989, which denied claimant’s application for reopening and reconsideration of a prior decision of the Board.

All claimant did to support her request that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reconsider its prior decision was to submit proof that the finding by the Administrative Law Judge as to the number of her absences from work was erroneous. However, the Board in its initial decision upholding the determination that claimant’s actions constituted misconduct corrected the erroneous finding. Therefore, given that claimant submitted no new evidence to the Board, it did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the application (see, Matter of Cruz [Levine], 49 AD2d 978).

[864]*864Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Levine and Mercure, 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 August 18, 1989, which denied claimant’s application for reopening and reconsideration of a prior decision of the Board.

All claimant did to support her request that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reconsider its prior decision was to submit proof that the finding by the Administrative Law Judge as to the number of her absences from work was erroneous. However, the Board in its initial decision upholding the determination that claimant’s actions constituted misconduct corrected the erroneous finding. Therefore, given that claimant submitted no new evidence to the Board, it did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the application (see, Matter of Cruz [Levine], 49 AD2d 978).

[864]*864Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 863, 563 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-perillo-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack