In re the Claim of Shell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Shell

16 A.D.3d 940, 791 N.Y.S.2d 734, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3091

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 940 (In re the Claim of Shell) 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 Shell, 16 A.D.3d 940, 791 N.Y.S.2d 734, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3091 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 9, 2004, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant failed to timely request a hearing challenging an October 15, 2003 initial determination ruling that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant received the decision shortly after it was mailed on October 15, 2003 and read the reverse side explaining that he had 30 days to request a hearing. Claimant nevertheless failed to request a hearing until March 19, 2004. Although claimant maintained that he participated in a 30-day in-patient treatment program and was not released until December 15, 2003, this does not excuse his delay in requesting a hearing prior thereto or explain the delay in requesting a hearing upon his release. Inasmuch as claimant did not present a valid excuse for failing to comply with the 30-day statutory period pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (1) (a) (see Matter of Jarrett [Commissioner of Labor], 13 AD3d 965 [2004]), the decision will not be disturbed (see Matter of Tobar [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 651 [2003]; Matter of Dillard [Sweeney], 222 AD2d 924 [1995]).

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, 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 9, 2004, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant failed to timely request a hearing challenging an October 15, 2003 initial determination ruling that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant received the decision shortly after it was mailed on October 15, 2003 and read the reverse side explaining that he had 30 days to request a hearing. Claimant nevertheless failed to request a hearing until March 19, 2004. Although claimant maintained that he participated in a 30-day in-patient treatment program and was not released until December 15, 2003, this does not excuse his delay in requesting a hearing prior thereto or explain the delay in requesting a hearing upon his release. Inasmuch as claimant did not present a valid excuse for failing to comply with the 30-day statutory period pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (1) (a) (see Matter of Jarrett [Commissioner of Labor], 13 AD3d 965 [2004]), the decision will not be disturbed (see Matter of Tobar [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 651 [2003]; Matter of Dillard [Sweeney], 222 AD2d 924 [1995]).

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 940, 791 N.Y.S.2d 734, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-shell-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack