From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoose v. Comm'r of Labor

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jan 17, 2013
102 A.D.3d 1031 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-01-17

In the Matter of the Claim of Tammy L. HOOSE, Appellant. v. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

Tammy L. Hoose, Penn Yan, appellant pro se. *914Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Bessie Bazile of counsel), for respondent.


Tammy L. Hoose, Penn Yan, appellant pro se. *914Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Bessie Bazile of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 26, 2011, which ruled that claimant's request for a hearing was untimely.

After losing her job, claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct. A notice of determination to that effect was mailed on June 1, 2010 and, despite admitting to receiving the letter, claimant did not request a hearing until August 2010. An Administrative Law Judge upheld the initial determination, finding that claimant's request for a hearing was untimely. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed that decision and claimant now appeals.

We affirm. Pursuant to Labor Law § 620(1)(a), a claimant who is dissatisfied with an initial determination regarding unemployment insurance benefits must request a hearing within 30 days unless prevented from doing so by physical or mental incapacity ( see Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor], 98 A.D.3d 792, 792, 949 N.Y.S.2d 817 [2012];Matter of Ramos [Commissioner of Labor], 93 A.D.3d 1012, 1012–1013, 940 N.Y.S.2d 345 [2012] ). Here, claimant admitted to receiving the determination shortly after it had been mailed. Furthermore, the only excuse proffered for the untimely hearing request was that she initially believed she did not have a meritorious case. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision ( see Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor], 98 A.D.3d at 792–793, 949 N.Y.S.2d 817;Matter of Crowley [Commissioner of Labor], 94 A.D.3d 1323, 1324, 942 N.Y.S.2d 292 [2012] ).

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

MERCURE, J.P., ROSE, LAHTINEN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hoose v. Comm'r of Labor

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jan 17, 2013
102 A.D.3d 1031 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Hoose v. Comm'r of Labor

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of Tammy L. HOOSE, Appellant. v. COMMISSIONER…

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

Date published: Jan 17, 2013

Citations

102 A.D.3d 1031 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 254
957 N.Y.S.2d 913