Opinion
November 24, 1993
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 (1983, WL 44294 [SD NY, Aug. 1, 1983, Carter, J., 79 Civ 5899]). Once the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that there were no substantial procedural violations, it correctly decided not to reconsider the merits of claimant's unemployment insurance appeal (see, Matter of Bennett [Hudacs], 187 A.D.2d 834; Matter of Mizzi [Hartnett], 173 A.D.2d 1045). 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.
Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.