From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Adjekum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 30, 2010
76 A.D.3d 1159 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 508798.

September 30, 2010.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 7, 2009, which ruled that claimant's request for a hearing was untimely.

Robert Adjekum, Perth Amboy, New Jersey, appellant pro se.

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

Before: Mercure, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ.


The Department of Labor issued a notice of determination dated October 9, 2008 disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he lost his employment due to misconduct. Claimant responded by letter dated November 23, 2008 protesting the notice of determination. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge sustained the Commissioner of Labor's timeliness objection, and that decision was upheld by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. "Labor Law § 620 (1) (a) provides that a claimant aggrieved by a notice of determination has 30 days from the date of the mailing of such notice to request a hearing, unless the claimant suffers from a physical or mental condition preventing a timely request, in which case the period may be extended" ( Matter of Walker [Commissioner of Labor], 23 AD3d 752, 753 [citation omitted]; see Matter of Pelli [Commissioner of Labor], 35 AD3d 930). Here, it is undisputed that claimant did not request a hearing within the requisite 30-day period despite the instructions on the back of the notice of determination. While he offered a variety of excuses for his omission, including that he was out of the country, suffered from high blood pressure and was experiencing financial difficulties, claimant failed to submit compelling proof demonstrating that he suffered from a physical or mental condition that prevented him from complying with the statute. Accordingly, the Board properly concluded that the hearing request was untimely, and the merits of his disqualification are not properly before this Court ( see Matter of McCarthy [Commissioner of Labor], 39 AD3d 993, 993-994).

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In re Adjekum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 30, 2010
76 A.D.3d 1159 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

In re Adjekum

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of ROBERT ADJEKUM, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF…

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

Date published: Sep 30, 2010

Citations

76 A.D.3d 1159 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 6741
907 N.Y.S.2d 724

Citing Cases

In re Moskovits

information regarding the time to request a hearing was set forth on each of the determinations, which…

Hills v. Comm'r Labor

We affirm. Labor Law § 620(1)(a) provides that a claimant has 30 days from the date of mailing or personal…