Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

In re the Claim of Trincere

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 23, 1997

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

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Claim of David (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
In re the Claim of Vosghanians (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
In re the Claim of Reed (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
In re the Claim of Sorge (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
In re the Claim of De Prima (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
In re the Claim of Wolff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re Martino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.