In re Wood
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Gilyard (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Karasik (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Matter of Jimeno (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Matter of Leone (Woodmere Florist, Ltd.--Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Matter of Vitomsky (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Brill (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Mercado (American Para Professional Sys. of NYC, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Mena (Philips Bryant Park, LLC--Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Saintalbord (Commr. of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- In re Lambrecht (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- In re Lambrecht (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- In re the Claim of Carlson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Claim of Carlson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Claim of Howell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- In re the Claim of Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- In re the Claim of McCarthy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- In re the Claim of Yastrzemski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
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
Claimant was employed as a patient representative for the University of Rochester until she resigned because she was unhappy with a new dress code policy being implemented. By decision dated September 22, 2004, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Thereafter, the Board, in a decision dated January 5, 2005, denied claimant’s application to reopen and reconsider its prior decision. This appeal ensued.
“The denial of an application for reopening and reconsideration will only bring up for review the merits of the original determination when the application is made within the 30-day period during which that original determination could be appealed” (Matter of De Siato [Ross], 74 AD2d 988, 988-989 [1980]; see Matter of Alfaro [Commissioner of Labor], 2 AD3d 961 [2003]; Matter of Jackson [Commissioner of Labor], 306 AD2d 604 [2003]). Inasmuch as claimant failed to apply for reopening and reconsideration of the September 22, 2004 Board decision until November 22, 2004, the merits of her disqualification for benefits are not properly before this Court (see Matter of Alfaro [Commissioner of Labor], supra; Matter of Jackson [Commissioner of Labor], supra). Furthermore, in the absence of any showing or allegation that the Board abused its discretion, its January 5, 2005 decision denying claimant’s application to reopen its prior decision will not be disturbed (see Matter of Kendricks [Commissioner of Labor], 1 AD3d 682, 682-683 [2003]; Matter of Woodcock [Commissioner of Labor], 298 AD2d 755, 755-756 [2002], lv dismissed 99 NY2d 610 [2003]).
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.