In re the Claim of Trincere

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Trincere

235 A.D.2d 904, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 538

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 904 (In re the Claim of Trincere) 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 Trincere, 235 A.D.2d 904, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 17, 1995, which, inter alia, denied claimant’s application to reopen a decision, filed September 25, 1986, ruling that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim.

Claimant filed an application to reopen a decision rendered by an Administrative Law Judge in September 1986. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied claimant’s application, rejecting claimant’s explanations for the delay and finding that claimant did not exercise due diligence in pursuing his application to reopen. Whether to grant an application to reopen lies within the discretion of the Board and absent a showing that the Board abused its discretion, such decisions will not be disturbed (see generally, Matter of Braz [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 938). Our review of the record discloses no abuse of the Board’s discretion in denying claimant’s application.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. 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 October 17, 1995, which, inter alia, denied claimant’s application to reopen a decision, filed September 25, 1986, ruling that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim.

Claimant filed an application to reopen a decision rendered by an Administrative Law Judge in September 1986. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied claimant’s application, rejecting claimant’s explanations for the delay and finding that claimant did not exercise due diligence in pursuing his application to reopen. Whether to grant an application to reopen lies within the discretion of the Board and absent a showing that the Board abused its discretion, such decisions will not be disturbed (see generally, Matter of Braz [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 938). Our review of the record discloses no abuse of the Board’s discretion in denying claimant’s application.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 904, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-trincere-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack