Opinion
2013-01-24
In the Matter of the Claim of Randall W. LAMBRECHT, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Randall W. Lambrecht, Bainbridge, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), for respondent.
Randall W. Lambrecht, Bainbridge, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 13, 2011, which denied claimant's application for reopening and reconsideration of a prior decision.
By decision dated April 15, 2011, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant's weekly benefit rate was zero under Labor Law § 600, which provides for a reduction in unemployment insurance benefits based upon the amount of contributions he made to his federal pension. On May 25, 2011, the Board received claimant's request for review of this decision, which the Board treated as an application for reopening and reconsideration. The Board denied claimant's application and claimant now appeals.
We affirm. “ ‘The denial of an application for reopening and reconsideration will only bring up for review the merits of the original determination when the application is made within the 30–day period during which that original determination could be appealed’ ” (Matter of Wood [Commissioner of Labor], 24 A.D.3d 854, 855, 805 N.Y.S.2d 682 [2005], quoting Matter of De Siato [Ross], 74 A.D.2d 988, 988–989, 426 N.Y.S.2d 180 [1980];see Matter of McManamon [Commissioner of Labor], 267 A.D.2d 558, 560, 699 N.Y.S.2d 191 [1999],lv. dismissed94 N.Y.2d 943, 709 N.Y.S.2d 501, 731 N.E.2d 157 [2000] ). Given that claimant's application was not made within the 30–day time period, the merits of the Board's April 15, 2011 decision are not properly before us, and we need only consider the propriety of the Board's denial of claimant's application to reopen. “[A]pplications to reopen a prior decision are within the discretion of the Board and its ruling on such applications will not be disturbed absent a showing that the Board abused its discretion” (Matter of Washington [Kaleida Health–Commissioner of Labor], 65 A.D.3d 1428, 1429, 65 A.D.3d 1428, 886 N.Y.S.2d 511 [2009];see Matter of Chanthyasack [Commissioner of Labor], 37 A.D.3d 963, 964, 829 N.Y.S.2d 749 [2007] ). Here, claimant has not advanced any arguments regarding the denial of his application to reopen, and we find nothing in the record to indicate that the Board abused its discretion in denying the same. Therefore, we find no reason to disturb its decision.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.