You are here: / / Employer’s Late Request for a Hearing Could Not Be Excused

Employer’s Late Request for a Hearing Could Not Be Excused

In affirming the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that an employer’s request for a hearing was untimely, the Third Department noted there was no provision allowing an extension of time:

“Pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (2), an employer has 30 days from the mailing or personal delivery of a contested determination  to  request a  hearing”….  The employer acknowledged receiving the determination, but was unsure of the date of such receipt. Pursuant to the unrebutted presumption found in 12 NYCRR 461.2, the determination was deemed mailed on January 12, 2009 and received by the employer within five days thereafter. Although the employer contends that the admittedly late written request for a hearing was due to law office failure, “the statutory time period in which to request a hearing is to be strictly construed, and the statute contains no  provision permitting an extension of time in which an employer can request a hearing”… . Matter of Agarwal, 515007, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

You might also like
New Trial Ordered: Juror Found “Grossly Unqualified” by the Trial Judge Should Have Been Dismissed/One Juror Was Absent from the Deliberations for About An Hour
THE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BENEFIT RECEIVED BY CLAIMANT DURING PARTICIPATION IN A WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM (WEP) CONSTITUTED WAGES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR ON THE JOB INJURY (THIRD DEPT).
THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RATHER, THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED (THIRD DEPT).
Hearing Conducted in Absence of Inmate Okay Due to Inmate’s Assaultive and Menacing Conduct
Resentencing to a Term of Imprisonment with a Maximum Greater than the Initial Sentence Violates Double Jeopardy Principles
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INJURED BY CO-WORKER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE GROSSLY NEGLIGENT AND THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ALSO A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER CONDONED DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS, PLAINTIFF’S SUIT NOT PRECLUDED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW.
THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE AWARD OF BACK PAY TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO FACED DISCIPLINARY ACTION RELATING TO A CRIMINAL OFFENSE BUT WAS ULTIMATELY ACQUITTED AFTER TRIAL; THEREFORE THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO MORE COMPENSATION FOR THE 3.86 ACRES TAKEN FOR AN AIRPORT RUNWAY AND THE 80.72 ACRES TAKEN FOR AN AVIGATION (RUNWAY APPROACH) EASEMENT; PURSUANT TO THE ISSUES OF CONTIGUITY, UNITY OF USE AND UNITY OF TITLE. THE ENTIRE PARCEL, NOT A SINGLE SMALLER PARCEL, WAS AFFECTED BY THE TAKING (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Participation in Program Can Be Delayed Until Close to Release Date Employee’s Use of Personal Checking Account Did Not Amount to Misconduct