From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Claim of Beatrice Carlson v. Comm'r of Labor

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 24, 2012
95 A.D.3d 1589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-05-24

In the Matter of the Claim of Beatrice CARLSON, Appellant.Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Beatrice Carlson, Long Beach, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Mary Hughes of counsel), for respondent.


Beatrice Carlson, Long Beach, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Mary Hughes of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 27, 2011, which denied petitioner's application to reopen a prior decision.

In 2002, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause, and the Board's decision was affirmed by this Court ( Matter of Carlson [Commissioner of Labor], 307 A.D.2d 582, 762 N.Y.S.2d 311 [2003] ). In 2010, claimant applied to the Board to reopen and reconsider this decision. The Board denied claimant's application and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. It is well settled that the decision to grant an application for reopening is within the discretion of the Board and its decision will not be disturbed absent a showing that the Board abused its discretion ( see Matter of Lee [Commissioner of Labor], 84 A.D.3d 1652, 1653, 922 N.Y.S.2d 880 [2011]; Matter of Washington [Kaleida Health–Commissioner of Labor], 65 A.D.3d 1428, 1429, 886 N.Y.S.2d 511 [2009] ). Here, claimant has not alleged that the Board abused its discretion and, consequently, we find no reason to disturb its decision denying her application to reopen ( see Matter of Miller [Commissioner of Labor], 67 A.D.3d 1246, 888 N.Y.S.2d 444 [2009]; Matter of Wood [Commissioner of Labor], 24 A.D.3d 854, 855, 805 N.Y.S.2d 682 [2005] ). We decline to reach the merits of the Board's underlying decision inasmuch as this was addressed in her prior appeal ( see Matter of Washington [Kaleida Health–Commissioner of Labor], 65 A.D.3d at 1429, 886 N.Y.S.2d 511).

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

MERCURE, J.P., LAHTINEN, SPAIN, STEIN and McCARTHY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In re Claim of Beatrice Carlson v. Comm'r of Labor

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 24, 2012
95 A.D.3d 1589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

In re Claim of Beatrice Carlson v. Comm'r of Labor

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of Beatrice CARLSON, Appellant.Commissioner of…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: May 24, 2012

Citations

95 A.D.3d 1589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 4068
943 N.Y.S.2d 924

Citing Cases

Shaw v. Commissioner of Labor

Claimant raises no arguments regarding the denial of the application to reopen and/or reconsider the Board's…

In re Shaw

Claimant raises no arguments regarding the denial of the application to reopen and/or reconsider the Board's…