In re the Claim of Nocera, 12 A.D.3d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · Go Syfert
In re the Claim of Nocera, 12 A.D.3d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: In re the Claim of Weinstein (nyappdiv, 2009-03-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Claim of Weinstein
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
“Certifying for benefits in accordance with the Labor Law and the applicable regulations is a necessary prerequisite to eligibility for benefits” (Matter of Prieto [Commissioner of Labor], 255 AD2d 859, 860 [1998] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Newman [Commissioner of Labor], 23 AD3d 816 [2005]), and whether a claimant has demonstrated good cause for any such noncompliance is a factual issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Breton [Commissioner of Labor], 30 AD3d 661, 662 [2006]; Matter of Nocera [Commissioner of Labor], 12 AD3d 769, 770 [2004]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Claim of Luanne M. Nocera, Commissioner of Labor
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 4, 2004.
12 A.D.3d 769
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

[*770] Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 20, 2003, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she failed to comply with reporting requirements.

Although claimant’s employment ended on April 4, 2003, she did not file an original claim for unemployment insurance benefits until April 14, 2003. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits effective April 7, 2003 through April 13, 2003 because she failed to comply with reporting requirements for that period. We affirm. “Certifying for benefits in accordance with the Labor Law and the applicable regulations is a necessary prerequisite to eligibility for benefits . . .” (Matter of Prieto [Commissioner of Labor], 255 AD2d 859, 860 [1998] [citation omitted]). While this failure can be excused for good cause, this is a factual issue for resolution by the Board (see Matter of Foertsch [Commissioner of Labor], 272 AD2d 739 [2000]). Here, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant did not make this showing notwithstanding claimant’s excuse that she was unfamiliar with the process of filing a claim and overwhelmed with losing her job (see Matter of Lang [Commissioner of Labor], 9 AD3d 648 [2004]; Matter of Saluk [Commissioner of Labor], 8 AD3d 923 [2004]; Matter of Rosado [Commissioner of Labor], 275 AD2d 848 [2000]). Significantly, claimant made no attempt to contact the Department of Labor to inquire about when and how to file a claim. We have reviewed claimant’s remaining contention alleging errors resulting from the use of a speaker phone to conduct the hearing and find it to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Feters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.