In re the Claim of Stock

249 A.D.2d 662, 670 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3870
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 9, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 662 (In re the Claim of Stock) 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 Stock, 249 A.D.2d 662, 670 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 6, 1997, which dismissed claimant’s appeal from a decision of an Administrative Law Judge as untimely, and (2) from a decision of said board, filed July 7, 1997, which charged claimant with a recoverable overpayment of benefits.

By decision filed November 5, 1996, an Administrative Law Judge ruled that claimant voluntarily left her employment as a secretary without good cause when, anticipating that her position would be terminated, she accepted the employer’s offer of an early retirement incentive package. Subsequently, claimant was assessed a recoverable overpayment. Inasmuch as claimant failed to file an appeal from the November 5, 1996 decision until January 5, 1997, well beyond the 20-day statutory time limit (see, Labor Law § 621 [1]), we find no reason to disturb the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board dismissing claimant’s appeal as untimely (see, Matter of Mulheron [Sweeney], 240 AD2d 809). Consequently, claimant’s attempt to challenge the merits of the November 5, 1996 decision is not properly before this Court (see, Matter of Jiminez [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 769, lv denied 91 NY2d 803). Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the Board’s subsequent assessment of a recoverable overpayment given the November [663]*6635, 1996 decision disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see, id.; see also, Labor Law § 597 [4]).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re the Claim of Bartel
300 A.D.2d 730 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Claim of Lawery
278 A.D.2d 635 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Miliadis
278 A.D.2d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Tucek
277 A.D.2d 628 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Dobbs
277 A.D.2d 550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Hungerford
273 A.D.2d 680 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Lau-Li
268 A.D.2d 655 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Jorge
268 A.D.2d 657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Lipford
268 A.D.2d 658 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Semiletov
253 A.D.2d 931 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
249 A.D.2d 662, 670 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-stock-nyappdiv-1998.