From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Burey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 17, 2004
8 A.D.3d 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

95157.

Decided and Entered: June 17, 2004.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 21, 2003, which dismissed claimant's appeal from a decision of the Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

Harry Y. Burey, Mount Vernon, appellant pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Bessie Bazile of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant failed to timely appeal the October 31, 2002 decision of the Administrative Law Judge which found that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant received the Administrative Law Judge's decision shortly after it was mailed on October 31, 2002 and read the reverse side explaining that he had 20 days in which to appeal the decision. Claimant nevertheless failed to appeal the decision until December 3, 2002. Having failed to comply with the 20-day statutory time period set forth in Labor Law § 621 (1), we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision dismissing the appeal as untimely (see Matter of Werekoh [Commissioner of Labor], 4 A.D.3d 724;Matter of Brightman [Commissioner of Labor], 3 A.D.3d 780). Although claimant maintained that he faxed a request for an appeal in a timely manner, he failed to offer any evidence to substantiate his claim. Nor was the fax referenced in the subsequent letter sent to the Board. Furthermore, claimant's assertion that he was relying on his attorney to file a timely appeal does not excuse his untimely request for a hearing (see Matter of Hy [Majerowski] [Commissioner of Labor], 278 A.D.2d 781; Matter of Semiletov [Commissioner of Labor], 253 A.D.2d 931), particularly given his failure to even attempt to contact his attorney. Finally, the underlying merits of the October 31, 2002 decision are not properly before this Court (see Matter of Werekoh [Commissioner of Labor], supra; Matter of Brightman [Commissioner of Labor], supra).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Burey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 17, 2004
8 A.D.3d 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Burey

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF HARRY Y. BUREY, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 17, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
778 N.Y.S.2d 322

Citing Cases

In re Almonte

We affirm. A request for a hearing must be made within 30 days after the mailing of the initial determination…

Harris v. Comm'r of Labor

We affirm. Notwithstanding claimant's proffered excuse that she relied upon her attorney to appeal the…