In re the Claim of Storch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Storch

244 A.D.2d 755, 666 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11769

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 755 (In re the Claim of Storch) 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 Storch, 244 A.D.2d 755, 666 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 30, 1996, which, inter alia, denied as untimely the request for a hearing of claimant’s employer.

We affirm. An employer’s failure to make a timely request for a hearing pursuant to Labor Law § 620 requires dismissal of its appeal (see, Matter of Davino [Good Samaritan Hosp. Med. Ctr.—Hudacs], 210 AD2d 778, 779). This Court consistently has held that the limitations period set forth in Labor Law § 620 is to be strictly construed (see, Matter of Hodges [Hartnett], 154 AD2d 816, 817). As the employer here failed to request a hearing within the time period set forth in Labor Law § 620, its subsequent request in this regard was properly deemed to be untimely.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Peters and Spain, 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 30, 1996, which, inter alia, denied as untimely the request for a hearing of claimant’s employer.

We affirm. An employer’s failure to make a timely request for a hearing pursuant to Labor Law § 620 requires dismissal of its appeal (see, Matter of Davino [Good Samaritan Hosp. Med. Ctr.—Hudacs], 210 AD2d 778, 779). This Court consistently has held that the limitations period set forth in Labor Law § 620 is to be strictly construed (see, Matter of Hodges [Hartnett], 154 AD2d 816, 817). As the employer here failed to request a hearing within the time period set forth in Labor Law § 620, its subsequent request in this regard was properly deemed to be untimely.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 755, 666 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-storch-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack