In re the Claim of Green
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of MacDonald (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Matter of Paladino (Commr. of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- In re Buchkin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- In re Buchkin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- In re the Claim of Cunto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- In re the Claim of Cunto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- In re the Claim of Dutta (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Claim of Politis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Claim of Politis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
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 discharged from his position as an imaging services attendant for insubordination. By decision dated and filed on March 26, 2010, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) determined, among other things, that claimant lost his employment through disqualifying misconduct. Claimant waited until April 21, 2010 to appeal this decision. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board declined to consider the appeal because it was not timely filed, and claimant failed to offer a reasonable excuse. Claimant now appeals from the Board’s decision and we affirm.
“Labor Law § 621 (1) requires that an appeal to the Board from an ALJ’s decision must be made within 20 days of the date the decision is mailed or personally delivered . . . and the statutory time limit is strictly construed” (Matter of Averett [Commissioner of Labor], 65 AD3d 1436, 1436-1437 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Page [Commissioner of Labor], 65 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2009]). Here, claimant’s excuse that he relied on his attorney to appeal the ALJ’s decision does not provide a basis to disturb the Board’s decision dismissing the appeal {see Matter of Harris [Commissioner of Labor], 45 AD3d 1031, 1032 [2007]). Consequently, claimant’s arguments regarding the underlying merits of the denial of his application for unemployment insurance benefits are not properly before us {see id.).
Mercure, J.E, Rose, Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.