In re the Claim of Tobar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Tobar

308 A.D.2d 651, 764 N.Y.S.2d 373, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9544

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 651 (In re the Claim of Tobar) 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 Tobar, 308 A.D.2d 651, 764 N.Y.S.2d 373, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 17, 2002, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

By initial determination dated and mailed October 24, 2000, claimant was found ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed. Claimant admitted that he received the determination shortly thereafter and read the instructions on the reverse side of the notice of determination indicating that he had 30 days in which to request a hearing. Claimant failed to request a hearing until January 2002. Claimant attempted to excuse his delay by indicating that he was under a lot of stress at the time, but he offered no medical proof that he was physically or mentally incapacitated. Inasmuch as claimant did not provide a reason[652]*652able excuse for failing to request a hearing within the 30-day statutory time period set forth in Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), we find no reason to disturb the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely (see Matter of Velez [Commissioner of Labor], 285 AD2d 882 [2001]; Matter of Bennett [Commissioner of Labor], 285 AD2d 777 [2001]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, 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 May 17, 2002, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

By initial determination dated and mailed October 24, 2000, claimant was found ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed. Claimant admitted that he received the determination shortly thereafter and read the instructions on the reverse side of the notice of determination indicating that he had 30 days in which to request a hearing. Claimant failed to request a hearing until January 2002. Claimant attempted to excuse his delay by indicating that he was under a lot of stress at the time, but he offered no medical proof that he was physically or mentally incapacitated. Inasmuch as claimant did not provide a reason[652]*652able excuse for failing to request a hearing within the 30-day statutory time period set forth in Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), we find no reason to disturb the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely (see Matter of Velez [Commissioner of Labor], 285 AD2d 882 [2001]; Matter of Bennett [Commissioner of Labor], 285 AD2d 777 [2001]).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 651, 764 N.Y.S.2d 373, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-tobar-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack