In re the Claim of Vaknin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Vaknin

231 A.D.2d 771, 647 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8748

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

DecidedSeptember 5, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 231 A.D.2d 771 (In re the Claim of Vaknin) 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 Vaknin, 231 A.D.2d 771, 647 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 8,1995, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

Claimant was initially ruled ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he was not totally unemployed. He was also charged with a recoverable overpayment of benefits and his right to future benefits was reduced because he made willfully false statements to obtain benefits. The initial determinations were mailed to claimant on January 16, 1992. Claimant requested a hearing on February 23, 1992. Inasmuch as claimant failed to advance a reasonable excuse for his failure to request a hearing within the 30-day time period provided for by Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant did not timely request a hearing (see, Matter of Obando [Sweeney], 212 AD2d 928; Matter of Moricone [New York Hosp. (Cornell Med. Ctr.)— Hudacs], 199 AD2d 802).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III 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 March 8,1995, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

Claimant was initially ruled ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he was not totally unemployed. He was also charged with a recoverable overpayment of benefits and his right to future benefits was reduced because he made willfully false statements to obtain benefits. The initial determinations were mailed to claimant on January 16, 1992. Claimant requested a hearing on February 23, 1992. Inasmuch as claimant failed to advance a reasonable excuse for his failure to request a hearing within the 30-day time period provided for by Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant did not timely request a hearing (see, Matter of Obando [Sweeney], 212 AD2d 928; Matter of Moricone [New York Hosp. (Cornell Med. Ctr.)— Hudacs], 199 AD2d 802).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 771, 647 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-vaknin-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack