LAURA TRICARICO v. BOARD OF REVIEW

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4479-04T14479-04T1

LAURA TRICARICO,

Petitioner,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,

Respondent-Respondent,

and

HMK ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Respondent-Appellant.

_______________________________

 

Argued April 4, 2006 - Decided April 18, 2006

Before Judges Lisa and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from a Final Decision of the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 59,809.

David H. Nachman argued the cause for appellant.

Allan J. Nodes, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney; Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Nodes, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

HMK Associates, Inc. appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review dismissing as untimely HMK's appeal from a decision of the Appeal Tribunal granting unemployment benefits to HMK's former employee, Laura Tricarico. We affirm.

The Appeal Tribunal rendered a decision in favor of Tricarico, which was mailed to the parties on January 26, 2005. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(c), HMK had ten days in which to file an appeal to the Board. Attached to the Appeal Tribunal's decision was a notice advising both parties that they had ten days in which to file an appeal.

The notice also advised that

The appeal period will be extended if good cause for late filing is shown. Good cause exists in situations where it can be shown that the delay was due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, which could not have been reasonably foreseen or prevented.

The employer did not file its appeal until February 8, 2005. The appeal letter, signed by Debra Kass, recited:

Pursuant to a conversation I had today with Sharon from the Hammonton Office, I was instructed to remit my formal appeal to the above mentioned case.

Thus it appears from the record that HMK did not even contact the agency until after the ten-day limit had expired. The letter did not set forth any reasons for the late submission.

On March 11, 2005, the Board dismissed the appeal, because it was untimely and the employer had not shown good cause for the late filing.

On this appeal, HMK contends that it "has a good cause for its late filing." But the facts alleged in its brief in support of that contention were not submitted to the Board and are not supported by any citation to the record. Moreover, the alleged facts that "the Company inadvertently missed a telephone hearing conducted [by the Appeal Tribunal] on January 26, 2005," that "[t]o HMK, the decision of Appeal Tribunal was very sudden," and that "HMK . . . did not have a chance to seek legal counsel with regard to the Appeal" would not constitute good cause. Even at oral argument, counsel was unable to articulate a reason for the late filing that would constitute good cause. Further, any advice allegedly received from "Sharon" would not constitute good cause for the late filing, because HMK did not even contact her until after the ten-day deadline had passed.

We will not consider HMK's arguments as to why Tricarico was ineligible for unemployment benefits, because those contentions are not properly before us.

Since the Board's decision is supported by the record and is not arbitrary or capricious, we affirm. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-4479-04T1

April 18, 2006