From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Kline

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 15, 1997
239 A.D.2d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 15, 1997

Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.


The employer's request to reopen this case where the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) had rendered a decision approving claimant's application for unemployment insurance benefits was granted, after which the ALJ reversed the initial decision and ruled that claimant left her employment under disqualifying conditions. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Claimant now contends that the ALJ abused his discretion in reopening the initial decision. We disagree. In view of the employer's excuse that it failed to receive notice of the initial hearing, we find no abuse of discretion by the ALJ in reopening the case (see, 12 NYCRR 461.8). Although not raised by claimant, we find that the Board's decision disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits is supported by substantial evidence, inasmuch as the record reveals that claimant left her employment for the purpose of attending school (see, Matter of Kucich [Hudacs], 204 A.D.2d 929).

Cardona, P.J., White, Casey, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Kline

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 15, 1997
239 A.D.2d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Matter of Kline

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of JOAN H. KLINE, Appellant. ENTENMANN'S…

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

Date published: May 15, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
657 N.Y.S.2d 246

Citing Cases

Matter of the Claim of Micara

We disagree. The employer offered a valid excuse for her nonappearance, i.e., the failure to receive notice…

Matter of Scott

We disagree. The record reveals that the employer failed to appear at the initial hearing because it was…