In re the Claim of Polizzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Polizzi

224 A.D.2d 840, 638 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1284

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 840 (In re the Claim of Polizzi) 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 Polizzi, 224 A.D.2d 840, 638 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 23, 1994, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

On its own motion, the Board reconsidered claimant’s case for the limited purpose of determining if there had been compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899, 1983 WL 44294). The Board concluded that no procedural violations had occurred and, accordingly, it adhered to its prior decision disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Based upon our review of the record, we reject claimant’s assertion that she was denied the procedural rights, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, delineated in the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (supra). Rather, we find that the Board properly concluded that there were no procedural violations and, accordingly, its decision must be upheld.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., 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 March 23, 1994, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

On its own motion, the Board reconsidered claimant’s case for the limited purpose of determining if there had been compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899, 1983 WL 44294). The Board concluded that no procedural violations had occurred and, accordingly, it adhered to its prior decision disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Based upon our review of the record, we reject claimant’s assertion that she was denied the procedural rights, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, delineated in the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (supra). Rather, we find that the Board properly concluded that there were no procedural violations and, accordingly, its decision must be upheld.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 840, 638 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-polizzi-nyappdiv-1996.