Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

In re the Claim of Velez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided July 19, 2001

285 A.D.2d 882; 727 N.Y.S.2d 362; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7549

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Bolden (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re the Claim of Wilner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
In re the Claim of Hedo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
In re the Claim of Bobian (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re the Claim of McKinley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re the Claim of Kearse (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re the Claim of Tobar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re the Claim of Kearns (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

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 18, 2000, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

*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.

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