In re the Claim of Speed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Speed

243 A.D.2d 807, 662 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9718

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 9, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 6, 1996, which dismissed claimant’s appeal from a decision of an Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

Substantial evidence in the record supports the finding of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant did not appeal from the December 1992 decision of the Administrative Law Judge until December 1993, well beyond the statutory 20-day limitations period (see, Labor Law § 621 [1]). The excuse offered by claimant is that she waited to file her appeal until she had received a decision from the Division of Labor Standards determining whether the same employer owed her vacation pay. This excuse does not exempt claimant from compliance with the filing requirements of Labor Law § 621 [808]*808(1); hence, the Board properly ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear claimant’s appeal (see, Matter of Banks [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 797).

Crew III, J. P., White, Yesawich Jr., 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 August 6, 1996, which dismissed claimant’s appeal from a decision of an Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

Substantial evidence in the record supports the finding of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant did not appeal from the December 1992 decision of the Administrative Law Judge until December 1993, well beyond the statutory 20-day limitations period (see, Labor Law § 621 [1]). The excuse offered by claimant is that she waited to file her appeal until she had received a decision from the Division of Labor Standards determining whether the same employer owed her vacation pay. This excuse does not exempt claimant from compliance with the filing requirements of Labor Law § 621 [808]*808(1); hence, the Board properly ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear claimant’s appeal (see, Matter of Banks [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 797).

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

In re the Claim of Speed, 243 A.D.2d 807, 662 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

243 A.D.2d 807 (In re the Claim of Speed) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related