Opinion
November 12, 1992
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
The only reason for reopening claimant's case was to decide whether there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards set forth in the consent judgment of Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899). Once the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that there were no substantial procedural violations, it adhered to its prior decision which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. On this appeal, claimant fails to allege any procedural errors covered by the terms of the consent judgment; therefore, the Board's decision must be upheld. In any event, claimant's argument that he should have been awarded benefits because his employer failed to appear at the hearing is without merit (see generally, Di Tondo v H R Block, 64 A.D.2d 750).
Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.