From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 18, 2010
71 A.D.3d 1324 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 507991.

March 18, 2010.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 18, 2009, which ruled that claimant's request for a hearing was untimely.

Dwayne Wright, Newark, New Jersey, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (Bessie Bazile of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur.


After he was terminated from his position as an assistant manager with a shipping and receiving company, claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Department of Labor mailed an initial determination on October 3, 2008 denying his claim. Claimant waited until December 5, 2008 to request a hearing. At the hearing, the Commissioner of Labor objected to its timeliness. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board sustained the timeliness objection and upheld the initial determination. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. It is undisputed that claimant failed to request a hearing within 30 days of the date that the initial determination was mailed as required by Labor Law § 620 (1) (a) ( see Matter of Lewis [Commissioner of Labor], 69 AD3d 1088; Matter of Baird [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d 466, 467; Matter of Briggs [Commissioner of Labor], 52 AD3d 1081, 1082). The proffered reason for his failure to make the request sooner was that he had difficulty focusing due to fact that he was moving from place to place. Inasmuch as this did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay ( see Matter of Baird [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d at 467) and claimant has not demonstrated that he suffered from a mental or physical disability that precluded him from requesting a hearing within the 30-day time period ( see Matter of Martinez [Commissioner of Labor], 52 AD3d 1137, 1137; Matter of Briggs [Commissioner of Labor], 52 AD3d at 1082), we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In re Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 18, 2010
71 A.D.3d 1324 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

In re Wright

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of DWAYNE WRIGHT, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF…

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

Date published: Mar 18, 2010

Citations

71 A.D.3d 1324 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 2054
895 N.Y.S.2d 886

Citing Cases

In re Elissa Desani

We affirm. Pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), when dissatisfied with an initial determination, a claimant…

In re Davis

We affirm. Pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), a claimant who is dissatisfied with an initial determination…