In re the Claim of Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Rodriguez

236 A.D.2d 734, 654 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1450

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 734 (In re the Claim of Rodriguez) 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 Rodriguez, 236 A.D.2d 734, 654 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 6, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

Claimant was employed as a baker until she left her employment on November 1, 1995. It is uncontested that claimant received a notice of determination, mailed November 30, 1995, informing her that she had been determined to be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she had voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant did not request a review hearing before an Administrative Law Judge until January 25, 1996, over three weeks beyond the 30-day limitations period within which she was required by statute to make such a request following the mailing of the local office’s decision (see, Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]). There is no evidence that this delay was the result of any "physical condition or mental incapacity” on claimant’s part (Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]; see, Matter of Gomez [Sweeney], 219 AD2d 767). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision and it is, accordingly, affirmed (see, Matter of Rounds [Sweeney], 220 AD2d 921, lv denied 87 NY2d 811).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. 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 May 6, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

Claimant was employed as a baker until she left her employment on November 1, 1995. It is uncontested that claimant received a notice of determination, mailed November 30, 1995, informing her that she had been determined to be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she had voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant did not request a review hearing before an Administrative Law Judge until January 25, 1996, over three weeks beyond the 30-day limitations period within which she was required by statute to make such a request following the mailing of the local office’s decision (see, Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]). There is no evidence that this delay was the result of any "physical condition or mental incapacity” on claimant’s part (Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]; see, Matter of Gomez [Sweeney], 219 AD2d 767). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision and it is, accordingly, affirmed (see, Matter of Rounds [Sweeney], 220 AD2d 921, lv denied 87 NY2d 811).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 734, 654 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-rodriguez-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack