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 Angelique A. SCOTT, Appellant. New York City Department of Personnel, Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 16, 1999, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
After rendering a decision approving claimant's application for unemployment insurance benefits, the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) granted the employer's request to reopen the decision. Thereafter, the ALJ reversed the initial decision and ruled that claimant lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently affirmed. Claimant now contends that the ALJ abused his discretion in reopening the initial decision. We disagree. The record reveals that the employer failed to appear at the initial hearing because it was conducting departmental proceedings against claimant and could not appear until the proceedings were complete. Although claimant contends that the employer's request for reopening was made after the time to appeal, the employer had a reasonable time within which to make its application and there is no statutory provision requiring the employer to move to reopen within a particular time period (see, Matter of Haberstroh [Commissioner of Labor], 251 A.D.2d 932, 674 N.Y.S.2d 879; Matter of McDermott [Sweeney], 231 A.D.2d 771, 646 N.Y.S.2d 733). Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion by the ALJ in reopening the decision (see, 12 NYCRR 461.8; Matter of Kline [Entenmann's-Sweeney], 239 A.D.2d 780, 657 N.Y.S.2d 246, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 807, 664 N.Y.S.2d 268, 686 N.E.2d 1363). Although not raised by claimant, we find substantial evidence to support the Board's decision that claimant's conduct of applying for credit cards in the name of fellow employees amounted to disqualifying misconduct (see, e.g., Matter of Dendy [Hartnett], 172 A.D.2d 936, 568 N.Y.S.2d 216).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: October 28, 1999
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)