In re the Claim of Peters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Peters

223 A.D.2d 919, 636 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 386

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 919 (In re the Claim of Peters) 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 Peters, 223 A.D.2d 919, 636 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 20, 1995, which denied claimant’s application for reopening and reconsideration.

After claimant defaulted in appearing at an administrative hearing in 1988, the Board ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. In March 1995, claimant applied to reopen this decision and in April 1995 a hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge at which claimant and a representative of the employer appeared. After the hearing the Administrative Law Judge determined that claimant had failed to apply for reopening within a reasonable period of time and that he lacked a valid excuse for his failure to do so in a timely fashion; the Board affirmed this decision. Claimant appeals from the Board’s decision. Upon reviewing the record, we find that claimant did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely move for reopening. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and Spain, 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 June 20, 1995, which denied claimant’s application for reopening and reconsideration.

After claimant defaulted in appearing at an administrative hearing in 1988, the Board ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. In March 1995, claimant applied to reopen this decision and in April 1995 a hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge at which claimant and a representative of the employer appeared. After the hearing the Administrative Law Judge determined that claimant had failed to apply for reopening within a reasonable period of time and that he lacked a valid excuse for his failure to do so in a timely fashion; the Board affirmed this decision. Claimant appeals from the Board’s decision. Upon reviewing the record, we find that claimant did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely move for reopening. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 919, 636 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-peters-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack