In re the Claim of Renzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Renzo

279 A.D.2d 690, 718 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 690 (In re the Claim of Renzo) 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 Renzo, 279 A.D.2d 690, 718 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 4, 2000, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

By initial determination dated and mailed June 4, 1999, claimant was informed that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause and was charged a recoverable overpayment of $652. Claimant admitted receiving the determination shortly after it was mailed but did not request a hearing until December 7, 1999. Inasmuch as claimant did not offer a reasonable excuse for failing to request an administrative hearing within the 30-day statutory time period set forth in Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), we find no reason to disturb the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely (see, Matter of Kraft [Commissioner of Labor], 260 AD2d 885; Matter of McGee [Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 710, lv denied 93 NY2d 803).

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, 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 April 4, 2000, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

By initial determination dated and mailed June 4, 1999, claimant was informed that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause and was charged a recoverable overpayment of $652. Claimant admitted receiving the determination shortly after it was mailed but did not request a hearing until December 7, 1999. Inasmuch as claimant did not offer a reasonable excuse for failing to request an administrative hearing within the 30-day statutory time period set forth in Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), we find no reason to disturb the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely (see, Matter of Kraft [Commissioner of Labor], 260 AD2d 885; Matter of McGee [Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 710, lv denied 93 NY2d 803).

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 690, 718 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-renzo-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack