IN RE: the Claim of Karen K. FORD

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

IN RE: the Claim of Karen K. FORD, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Decided: September 29, 2005

Before:  MERCURE, J.P., PETERS, SPAIN, MUGGLIN and ROSE, JJ. Karen Ford, Croton-on-Hudson, appellant pro se. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Dawn A. Foshee of counsel), for respondent.

Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 17, 2001, which denied claimant's application to reopen and reconsider a prior decision, and (2) from a letter written on behalf of the Board, dated July 7, 2003, which denied claimant's application to reopen and reconsider a prior decision.

Claimant's appeals represent the latest in a succession of challenges to a May 2001 decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which denied her application for Training Adjustment Assistance benefits under the Federal Trade Act (19 USC § 2102 et seq.).1  This Court has since affirmed that decision as supported by substantial evidence (12 A.D.3d 955, 785 N.Y.S.2d 576 [2004] ).   Claimant now appeals both the Board's July 2001 denial of her application to reopen and reconsider its May 2001 decision and a July 2003 letter from a Board staff member stating that the Board would not entertain a second application by claimant requesting the same relief.

 Inasmuch as we have already considered and rejected the merits of claimant's appeal from the Board's May 2001 decision, we are limited on the present appeals to a determination of whether the Board's subsequent refusals to reopen and reconsider that decision constituted an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Tucek [Big V Supermarkets-Commissioner of Labor], 277 A.D.2d 628, 629, 715 N.Y.S.2d 120 [2000];  Matter of Wolff [Commissioner of Labor], 252 A.D.2d 714, 675 N.Y.S.2d 918 [1998] ).   Claimant, who points to no new evidence not already fully considered by the Board but, rather, bases her contentions on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Board's continuing jurisdictional authority to reopen prior decisions (see Labor Law § 534;  12 NYCRR 463.6;  Matter of Moore [Hartnett], 155 A.D.2d 721, 722, 547 N.Y.S.2d 433 [1989] ), has failed to demonstrate such abuse here.   Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Board's July 2001 decision denying claimant's application to reopen.   With regard to claimant's subsequent attempt to obtain the same relief by appealing from the July 2003 letter, which was not issued by a Board member and merely references the July 2001 decision, we note that such document does not constitute an appealable decision by the Board and, therefore, claimant's appeal therefrom must be dismissed (see Labor Law § 624;  12 NYCRR 460.3, 464.1;  Matter of Drummond v. The Desmond, 295 A.D.2d 711, 713, 744 N.Y.S.2d 224 [2002], lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 615, 752 N.Y.S.2d 1 [2002] ).

ORDERED that the July 17, 2001 decision is affirmed, without costs.

ORDERED that the appeal from the July 7, 2003 letter is dismissed, without costs.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The underlying facts of this ongoing dispute are set forth in this Court's prior order settling the records in two other appeals by claimant (5 A.D.3d 929, 773 N.Y.S.2d 740 [2004] ).

SPAIN, J.

MERCURE, J.P., PETERS, MUGGLIN and ROSE, JJ., concur.

Copied to clipboard