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 MARCITA G. CHILDS, Appellant. KALEIDA HEALTH, Respondent. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Calendar Date: November 4, 2009
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 6, 2008, which denied claimant's application to reopen a prior decision.
Many of the pertinent facts of this case, in which claimant challenges a determination disqualifying her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that she lost employment through misconduct, are set forth in our prior decision (42 AD3d 620 [2007] ). Subsequent to our decision, claimant applied to reopen her case in August 2007 and that request was denied by a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board filed on October 15, 2007. Thereafter, claimant entered into a settlement agreement with the employer to discontinue complaints of discrimination that she had filed with the State Division of Human Rights. As part of the settlement, claimant's termination of employment was converted to a voluntary resignation. Based on this new development, claimant filed applications for reopening and reconsideration of her case in January 2008 and June 2008. In a decision filed on August 6, 2008, the Board again denied claimant's request to reopen. Claimant now appeals.
The decision as to whether to grant an application to reopen a decision is within the sound discretion of the Board and, absent a showing that it abused that discretion, its decision will not be disturbed (see Matter of Monroe [Commissioner of Labor], 59 AD3d 836, 837 [2009]; Matter of Chanthyasack [Commissioner of Labor], 37 AD3d 963, 964 [2007] ). Here, claimant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion, inasmuch as the private settlement agreement between the parties is not binding upon the Board, which was free to make its own determination regarding the factual basis for claimant's discharge (see Matter of Waite [Town of Taghkank-Commissioner of Labor], 3 AD3d 766, 767 [2004]; Matter of Tucek [Big V Supermarkets-Commissioner of Labor], 277 A.D.2d 628, 629 [2000]; Matter of Napolitano [Commissioner of Labor], 264 A.D.2d 928, 928-929 [1999]; Matter of Briem [Ross], 71 A.D.2d 752, 752 [1979], affd 52 N.Y.2d 842 [1981] ).
Spain, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
ENTER:
Michael J. Novack
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 506960
Decided: January 14, 2010
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)