Case Name: In the Matter of the Claim of Adelene Matteo, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-12-17
Citations: 134 A.D.3d 1307
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Adelene Matteo, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 134
Pages: 1307–1307

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Claim of Adelene Matteo, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
[20 NYS3d 915]

Opinion:
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 27, 2013, which dismissed claimant's appeal from a decision of the Administrative Law Judge as untimely.
By decision dated January 9, 2013, an Administrative Law Judge affirmed an initial decision of the Department of Labor that, among other things, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant's appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was not filed until February 25, 2013. The Board dismissed the appeal as untimely as claimant did not set forth a reasonable excuse for the delay. This appeal ensued.
We affirm. Labor Law § 621 (1) requires that an appeal from a decision of an Administrative Law Judge be taken within 20 days of the date the decision is mailed or personally delivered, and this time requirement is strictly construed (see Matter of Stephens [Commissioner of Labor], 119 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2014]; Matter of Buchkin [Commissioner of Labor], 115 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2014]). Claimant's request for an appeal to the Board was not made within the statutory time period and good cause for noncompliance was not set forth by claimant (see Matter of Area Emporium LLC [Commissioner of Labor], 115 AD3d 1096, 1097 [2014]; Matter of Palmatier [Commissioner of Labor], 63 AD3d 1329, 1329 [2009]). In view of the foregoing, the Board's decision will not be disturbed and, accordingly, the underlying merits of the denial of her application for unemployment insurance benefits are not properly before us (see Matter of Stephens [Commissioner of Labor], 119 AD3d at 1259).
Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.