In re the Claim of Velez

285 A.D.2d 882, 727 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7549
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 19, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 882 (In re the Claim of Velez) 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 Velez, 285 A.D.2d 882, 727 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 18, 2000, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

[883]*883By initial determination dated and mailed July 18, 2000, claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant admitted that he received the determination shortly after it was mailed but he did not request a hearing until August 25, 2000. Although claimant contends that he did not request a hearing because he was confused due to another scheduled hearing pertaining to a claim involving a different employer, he admitted to reading the reverse side of the notice of determination which provided clear instruction that a hearing request must be made within 30 days. Inasmuch as claimant did not provide a reasonable excuse for failing to request a hearing within the 30-day statutory time period provided by Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), we find no reason to disturb the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely (see, Matter of Renzo [Commissioner of Labor], 279 AD2d 690). To the extent that claimant attempts to introduce Express Mail receipts to support his contention that his hearing request was timely, we note that not only did claimant admit he mailed his hearing request late, but such receipts were not introduced at the hearing.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain 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

Related

In re Bolden
65 A.D.3d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Wilner
27 A.D.3d 860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re the Claim of Hedo
19 A.D.3d 985 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Bobian
13 A.D.3d 712 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Claim of Tobar
308 A.D.2d 651 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Kearse
308 A.D.2d 628 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of McKinley
307 A.D.2d 506 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Kearns
296 A.D.2d 761 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
285 A.D.2d 882, 727 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-velez-nyappdiv-2001.