In re the Claim of Fernandez, 102 A.D.3d 1020 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
In re the Claim of Fernandez, 102 A.D.3d 1020 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Hart (Commr. of Labor)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: accord · confidence high
Initially, as claimant is aggrieved by the Board’s September 2014 decisions “in essentially the same manner as [he] was by the appealed-from decision [s],” we will consider the merits of his arguments despite his failure to appeal from the 2014 decisions (Matter of McCauley [Commissioner of Labor], 104 AD3d 973 , 973-974 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Matter of Fernandez [Watkins — Commissioner of Labor], 102 AD3d 1020 , 1021 [2013]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Claim of Zainab S. Fernandez, Kevin Watkins, Appellant Commissioner of Labor
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 17, 2013.
102 A.D.3d 1020
Published

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 29, 2011, as superceded by decision filed May 21, 2012, which determined representation fees for claimant’s representative in her application for unemployment insurance benefits.

Kevin Watkins represented claimant in her successful claim for unemployment insurance benefits. In January 2011, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board fixed his representation fee at $400. Claimant applied for reconsideration and, in a decision filed on April 29, 2011, the Board modified the determination, setting the fee at $150. Watkins appealed to this Court and, while the appeal was pending, the Board reopened its de[*1021] termination. In a decision dated May 21, 2012, the Board rescinded the April 29, 2012 decision and, after reviewing the records, again fixed the fee at $150.

Although Watkins did not appeal from the May 2012 decision, insofar as he remains aggrieved by that decision “in essentially the same manner” as the April 2011 decision, we will consider the merits of his contention in the context of the May 2012 decision (Matter of Ford [Commissioner of Labor], 12 AD3d 955, 955 [2004]). Here, inasmuch as the Board was acting within its administrative capacity when it fixed the representation fee in question, an appeal of its determination to this Court is precluded (see Matter of Raff & Becker [Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd.], 208 AD2d 1086, 1086 [1994], lv dismissed and denied 86 NY2d 776 [1995]; Matter of Dressman v Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 91 AD2d 1147, 1147 [1983]). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Peters, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.