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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 20, 1997·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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.

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

244 A.D.2d 755 (In re the Claim of Storch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related