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 Charles T. MICHELSEN, Appellant. Lenox Hill Hospital, Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 17, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was terminated from his employment as a hospital porter for insubordination. The local unemployment office awarded claimant unemployment insurance benefits but, following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because the insubordination amounted to misconduct. The ALJ's decision, however, conflicted with the ruling and stated that the local unemployment office's determination “is sustained”. At the employer's request, another ALJ corrected this ministerial error and issued a revised decision stating that, inter alia, “[t]he initial determination of the local office is overruled”. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board sustained the revised decision and we affirm. Contrary to claimant's contention, the employer's request to revise the language of the decision to conform to the ruling cannot be characterized as an appeal. Therefore, the request was not subject to the timeliness provisions of Labor Law § 621(2). We have reviewed the remaining arguments advanced by claimant, including the claim that he was denied the opportunity to call a particular witness, and find them to be without merit.
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: July 02, 1998
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)