In re the Claim of Samaniego

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Samaniego

235 A.D.2d 887, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 539

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 887 (In re the Claim of Samaniego) 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 Samaniego, 235 A.D.2d 887, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 20, 1995, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

It is undisputed that claimant failed to comply with the requirements of Labor Law § 620 (1) (a) by requesting an administrative hearing either in person or in writing within 30 days after issuance of the notice of decision by the local unemployment insurance office. There is no evidence that claimant failed to receive the notice or that the delay was caused by her "physical condition or mental incapacity” (Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]). Under these circumstances, the Board was without authority to review the initial determination finding that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits and its decision to that effect is accordingly affirmed (see, Matter of Moricone [Cornell Med. Ctr.—Hudacs], 199 AD2d 802; Matter of Rollins [Hartnett], 176 AD2d 424).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Peters, Spain 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 July 20, 1995, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

It is undisputed that claimant failed to comply with the requirements of Labor Law § 620 (1) (a) by requesting an administrative hearing either in person or in writing within 30 days after issuance of the notice of decision by the local unemployment insurance office. There is no evidence that claimant failed to receive the notice or that the delay was caused by her "physical condition or mental incapacity” (Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]). Under these circumstances, the Board was without authority to review the initial determination finding that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits and its decision to that effect is accordingly affirmed (see, Matter of Moricone [Cornell Med. Ctr.—Hudacs], 199 AD2d 802; Matter of Rollins [Hartnett], 176 AD2d 424).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 887, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-samaniego-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack