Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the Claim of Marines TRINIDAD, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 15, 2004, which dismissed claimant's appeal from a decision of an Administrative Law Judge as untimely.
By decision dated and mailed May 4, 2004, an Administrative Law Judge sustained an initial determination ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct. The record confirms that claimant appealed this decision by a written notice which she did not mail until June 1, 2004. During a hearing to determine the timeliness of the appeal, claimant admitted to receiving the May 4, 2004 decision shortly after it was mailed and acknowledged that it contained a notice advising her that she had 20 days in which to appeal, but she delayed requesting an appeal due to her ongoing job search and mistaken belief that she had more time to appeal. Inasmuch as claimant failed to offer a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the strict 20-day statutory time period set forth in Labor Law § 621(1), we find no reason to disturb the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision dismissing claimant's appeal as untimely (see Matter of Tomao [Commissioner of Labor], 21 A.D.3d 638, 799 N.Y.S.2d 328 [2005]; Matter of Popescu [Commissioner of Labor], 16 A.D.3d 757, 758, 790 N.Y.S.2d 315 [2005]; Matter of Plotnik [Commissioner of Labor], 13 A.D.3d 700, 701, 785 N.Y.S.2d 354 [2004] ). We need not, therefore, address claimant's arguments relating to the underlying merits of the denial of her application for benefits (see id.).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 22, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)