In re the Claim of Simmons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Simmons

3 A.D.3d 826, 770 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 892

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 826 (In re the Claim of Simmons) 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 Simmons, 3 A.D.3d 826, 770 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 16, 2002, which denied claimant’s application to reopen a previous decision denying her application for unemployment insurance benefits.

Following an initial determination finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct and charging her with a recoverable overpayment of benefits, claimant requested a hearing at which she failed to appear. Thereafter, a default decision was issued sustaining the initial determination. Claimant’s subsequent request, months later, to [827]*827reopen the hearing was denied and this appeal ensued. Contrary to claimant’s assertion, we find no abuse of discretion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board in denying her application to reopen (see Matter of Sorge [Commissioner of Labor], 268 AD2d 668 [2000]; Matter of Trincere [Sweeney], 235 AD2d 904 [1997]). Although informed twice by the Department of Labor that she needed to request a reopening in writing, claimant chose to ignore such advice. Furthermore, the merits of her denial for unemployment insurance benefits are not properly before this Court.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, 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 December 16, 2002, which denied claimant’s application to reopen a previous decision denying her application for unemployment insurance benefits.

Following an initial determination finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct and charging her with a recoverable overpayment of benefits, claimant requested a hearing at which she failed to appear. Thereafter, a default decision was issued sustaining the initial determination. Claimant’s subsequent request, months later, to [827]*827reopen the hearing was denied and this appeal ensued. Contrary to claimant’s assertion, we find no abuse of discretion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board in denying her application to reopen (see Matter of Sorge [Commissioner of Labor], 268 AD2d 668 [2000]; Matter of Trincere [Sweeney], 235 AD2d 904 [1997]). Although informed twice by the Department of Labor that she needed to request a reopening in writing, claimant chose to ignore such advice. Furthermore, the merits of her denial for unemployment insurance benefits are not properly before this Court.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 826, 770 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-simmons-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack