Opinion
May 16, 1991
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Upon reopening its decision for the sole purpose of determining whether there was compliance with the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899), the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found no substantial procedural violations and it therefore adhered to its original decision disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. We agree with the Board that claimant's contentions in this regard are meritless and, therefore, affirmance is required (see, e.g., Matter of Ferri [Roberts], 114 A.D.2d 743). The record indicates that, although claimant missed the very beginning of the employer's testimony, the Administrative Law Judge gave a summary of the brief testimony upon claimant's late arrival. In addition, although claimant contends that he was not informed of certain rights when he first appeared, soon thereafter the Administrative Law Judge not only told claimant of his right to cross-examine, but claimant's request for witnesses was granted as was his request for an adjournment. Finally, with respect to claimant's contention that he was denied the right to call all expert witnesses, because claimant admitted that a medical injury was not the reason he gave his employer for not returning to work the additional expert testimony would have been irrelevant (see, Armetta v General Motors Corp., 158 A.D.2d 284, 286).
Decision affirmed, without costs. Weiss, J.P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.