IN RE: the Claim of JASON RAMSAMMY (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Calendar Date:  June 12, 2026

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 12, 2025, which ruled, among other things, that claimant's request for a hearing was untimely.

By initial determination mailed on May 6, 2024, the Department of Labor notified claimant that he was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.  The following day, the Department issued a separate notice that claimant was being charged with recoverable overpayments of benefits and a civil penalty.  Although the determinations advised claimant that he had 30 days from the mailing date in which to request a hearing, claimant did not request a hearing until August 19, 2024.  The Department subsequently raised an issue as to the timeliness of claimant's hearing request.  At the initial hearing held in December 2024, claimant's counsel informed the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) that he was not prepared to proceed at that time.  The ALJ held claimant in default and sustained the Department's timeliness objection and held that the initial determinations remained in effect.  Following a hearing held on claimant's application to reopen his default, the ALJ granted claimant's application but again sustained the Department's timeliness objection, continuing the Department's determinations as to claimant's ineligibility, willful misrepresentations and holding him responsible for recoverable overpayments and penalties.  The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed, prompting this appeal.

“Labor Law § 620(1)(a) provides that a claimant who is dissatisfied with an initial determination issued by the Department must request a hearing within 30 days of the date of mailing or personal delivery of the determination, unless he or she is prevented from doing so by physical or mental incapacity” (Matter of Bernardone [Commissioner of Labor], 224 AD3d 1049, 1050 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ).  “The statutory time limits are strictly construed” (Matter of Macdonald [Commissioner of Labor], 221 AD3d 1166, 1167 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ).

Claimant testified that he received both determinations on or about May 15, 2024 and that he reviewed the instructions on the determinations regarding requesting a hearing.  When asked what he did in response, he testified that “I didn't do anything at that time.  I don't know why I didn't.”  Although claimant also testified that he filled out and submitted a questionnaire provided by the Department regarding his case where he “tried to request a hearing,” he could not remember when he submitted it, and we defer to the Board's resolution of this credibility issue (see Matter of Cooper [Commissioner of Labor], 239 AD3d 1209, 1211 [3d Dept 2025] ).  Given that claimant did not request a hearing within the allotted 30–day time period and failed to demonstrate that he was prevented from complying with the time requirement due to a physical or mental incapacity, the Board's decision that claimant's request for a hearing was untimely will not be disturbed (see Matter of Harte [Commissioner of Labor], 237 AD3d 1331, 1332 [3d Dept 2025];  Matter of Bernardone [Commissioner of Labor], 224 AD3d at 1051).  In light of this conclusion, the merits of the underlying determinations are not properly before us.

Clark, J.P., Aarons, Ceresia, Fisher and Powers, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.