In re the Claim of Fascaldo, 283 A.D.2d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
In re the Claim of Fascaldo, 283 A.D.2d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Claim of Welsh
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as claimant’s notice of appeal from the Board’s May 8, 2007 decision was not filed until July 10, 2007, well after the 30-day time period, it is untimely (see Labor Law § 624; Matter of Fascaldo [Commissioner of Labor], 283 AD2d 827, 828 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Claim of Andronica
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Accordingly, claimant’s appeal from the February 2006 decision must be dismissed as untimely (see Labor Law § 624; Matter of Bostic [Commissioner of Labor], 288 AD2d 527, 528 [2001]; Matter of Fascaldo [Commissioner of Labor], 283 AD2d 827, 828 [2001]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Claim of Maria T. Fascaldo, Commissioner of Labor
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 17, 2001.
283 A.D.2d 827
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 19, 2000, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a bank teller for violating the employer’s policy regarding check cashing procedures. On January 19, 2000, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant thereafter applied to the Board for a re[*828] opening and reconsideration of the January 19, 2000 decision. On March 30, 2000, the Board denied this request. In the interim, claimant filed a notice of appeal on March 15, 2000 from the original decision. Claimant has not appealed from the denial of her request for reopening and reconsideration.

Inasmuch as claimant’s appeal is untimely, we will not consider the merits. Labor Law § 624 provides that an appeal from a decision of the Board must be filed within 30 days. Claimant’s notice of appeal from the Board’s decision of January 19, 2000 was not filed until March 15, 2000, well after the 30-day limitations period had expired (see, Matter of Rogers [Community Health Ctr. — Commissioner of Labor], 268 AD2d 937). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as untimely.

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