Skip to main content

IN RE: the Claim of Shaquana M. HILL (2014)

Reset A A Font size: Print

IN RE: the Claim of Shaquana M. HILL, Also Known as Shaquana M. Kendall, Appellant. v. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

Decided: January 30, 2014

Before ROSE, J.P., LAHTINEN, McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ. Shaquana M. Hill, Douglasville, Georgia, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Dawn A. Foshee of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 9, 2012, which ruled that claimant's request for a hearing was untimely.

In April 2002, the Department of Labor issued and mailed an initial determination finding claimant to be ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was discharged from her employment due to misconduct. The Department further charged claimant with a recoverable overpayment of $1,440 and reduced her right to collect future benefits by eight days for having made willful misrepresentations to collect benefits. In May 2011, claimant requested a hearing to challenge the 2002 determination. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately determined that the request was untimely, and claimant appeals.

We affirm. Pursuant to Labor Law § 620(1)(a), a claimant who is dissatisfied with an initial determination concerning unemployment insurance benefits has 30 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to request a hearing, unless prevented from doing so due to physical or mental incapacity (see Matter of Randell [Commissioner of Labor], 105 A.D.3d 1243, 1243 [2013]; Matter of Hoose [Commissioner of Labor], 102 A.D.3d 1031, 1031 [2013] ). Here, claimant did not request a hearing within 30 days of the mailing of the Department's initial determination in 2002. Her proffered excuse was that she never received the determination. She admittedly resided at the address where the determination was mailed during part of 2002, but she testified that she moved during the year and could not recall where she was residing at the time of the mailing. Notably, there is nothing in the record to indicate that she informed the Department of a change of address during this time period. In our view, claimant has not proffered an acceptable excuse for not making a timely request for a hearing (see Matter of Desani [Commissioner of Labor], 78 A.D.3d 1403, 1403 [2010]; Matter of Davis [Commissioner of Labor], 76 A.D.3d 1136, 1136 [2010] ), and the Board's decision will not be disturbed.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Copied to clipboard