In re the Claim of Tokos, 118 A.D.3d 1209 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · Go Syfert
In re the Claim of Tokos, 118 A.D.3d 1209 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Feilzer v. New York State Division of Parole (nyappdiv, 2015-09-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Feilzer v. New York State Division of Parole
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
In evaluating a request for parole release, the Boardi was not required to give each statutory factor equal weight (see Matter of Diaz v New York State Dept. of Corrections & Community Supervision, 127 AD3d 1493, 1494 [2015]; Matter of Singh v Evans, 118 AD3d 1209, 1210 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 906 [2014]) and could, in its discretion, place greater emphasis upon the serious nature of petitioner’s crimes (see Matter of Martinez v New York State Bd. of Parole, 83 AD3d 1319, 1319 [2011]; Matter of Santos v Evans, 81 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Hill v. New York State Board of Parole
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Notably, respondent was not required to give each of these factors equal weight (see Matter of Lackwood v New York State Div. of Parole, 127 AD3d at 1495; Matter of Singh v Evans, 118 AD3d 1209, 1210 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 906 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Diaz v. New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Significantly, the Board was not required to place equal weight upon each statutory factor that it considered (see Matter of Singh v Evans, 118 AD3d 1209, 1210 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 906 [2014]; Matter of Shark v New York State Div. of Parole Chair, 110 AD3d 1134 , 1134 [2013], lv dismissed 23 NY3d 933 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Diaz v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
In making its decision, the Board is not required to give equal weight to each factor delineated in the statute (see Matter of Singh v Evans, 118 AD3d 1209, 1210 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 906 [2014]; Matter of Sanchez v Division of Parole, 89 AD3d 1305, 1306 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MatterofLeungvEvans (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Supreme Court dismissed the petition and petitioner appeals. -2- 518084 We are unpersuaded by petitioner's contention that the hearing was unlawful due to the Board's failure to promulgate new written procedures pursuant to the 2011 amendments to Executive Law § 259-c (4) (see Matter of Singh v Evans, 118 AD3d 1209, 1209 [2014]; compare Matter of Garfield v Evans, 108 AD3d 830 , 830–831 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leung v. Evans (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that the hearing was unlawful due to the Board’s failure to promulgate new written procedures pursuant to the 2011 amendments to Executive Law § 259-c (4) (see Matter of Singh v Evans, 118 AD3d 1209, 1209 [2014]; compare Matter of Garfield v Evans, 108 AD3d 830, 830-831 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leung v. Evans (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that the hearing was unlawful due to the Board’s failure to promulgate new written procedures pursuant to the 2011 amendments to Executive Law § 259-c (4) (see Matter of Singh v Evans, 118 AD3d 1209, 1209 [2014]; compare Matter of Garfield v Evans, 108 AD3d 830, 830-831 [2013]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly A. Tokos, Commissioner of Labor
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 19, 2014.
118 A.D.3d 1209
Clark, Lahtinen, Lynch, McCarthy, Rose.
Published

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 25, 2013, which ruled that claimant was ineligible for a trade readjustment allowance under the Federal Trade Act of 1974.

Following claimant’s separation from employment, she applied for trade readjustment allowance (hereinafter TRA) benefits under the Federal Trade Act of 1974 (see 19 USC § 2101 et seq.). An Administrative Law Judge upheld the initial determination finding claimant ineligible for benefits on the ground that she did not timely enroll in a training program. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. Claimant admitted that she received and read documentation sent from the Department of Labor that set forth the date by which she was required to be enrolled in a training program in order to be eligible for TRA benefits. However, the record establishes that, although she had applied and was accepted into a program, she did not enroll in a training program until after the specified deadline. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant is ineligible for TRA benefits (see Matter of Louis [Commissioner of Labor], 12 AD3d 889 [2004], lv dismissed 4 NY3d 882 [2005]). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be unpersuasive.

Lahtinen, J.E, McCarthy, Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.