MICHAEL J. PETO v. BOARD OF REVIEW and SKY-MAN FITNESS, INC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                  APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

                                     SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                     APPELLATE DIVISION
                                     DOCKET NO. A-4535-08T
3

MICHAEL.J. PETO,

     Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW and
SKY-MAN FITNESS, INC.,

     Respondents.
______________________________

         Submitted: June 7, 2010 - Decided August 26, 2010

         Before Judges R. B. Coleman and Coburn.

         On   appeal  from   the   Board  of   Review,
         Department of Labor, Docket No. 207,250.

         Michael J. Peto, appellant pro se.

         Paula T. Dow, Attorney General, attorney for
         respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant
         Attorney General, of counsel; Ellen A.
         Reichart, Deputy Attorney General, on the
         brief).

         Respondent Sky-Man      Fitness,   Inc.   has   not
         filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

     Michael Peto appeals from the dismissal of his appeal to

the Board of Review.     The Board accepted the Deputy Examiner's

determination of disqualification for benefits based on Peto's

untimely appeal.      Peto asserts that his landlord delayed in

giving him his mail, but the Board concluded that Peto received

the Deputy's determination and waited beyond the specified time

period before filing his appeal.      The Board, therefore, held

that the Deputy's determination became final, and it upheld the

disqualification.   We likewise affirm.

    The applicable statute, N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(b)(1) provides in

pertinent part that:

           Unless the claimant or any interested party,
           within seven calendar days after delivery of
           notification of an initial determination or
           within   10   calendar    days   after  such
           notification was mailed to his or their
           last-known address and addresses, files an
           appeal from such decision, such decision
           shall be final and benefits shall be paid or
           denied in accordance therewith[.]

Peto admits he did not file his appeal for twelve days after the

Deputy's notification was mailed to his last-known address, and

the Board justifiably determined that he did not meet his burden

of showing good cause for the late filing.    The standard of our

review has been concisely expressed by the Supreme Court as

follows:

           Although in reviewing the decision of an
           administrative   agency,    we    must   give
           deference to the agency's findings of fact,
           and some deference to its interpretation of
           statutes   and    regulations    within   its
           implementing and enforcing responsibility,
           we are in no way bound by the agency's
           interpretation   of   a    statute   or   its
           determination of a strictly legal issue.




                                                           A-4535-08T3
                                2

         Utley v. Bd. of Review, 
194 N.J. 534, 551
         (2008) (internal citations and quotations
         omitted).

Thus, we are not bound by the agency's decision; however, in

this instance, the statute is unambiguous.    The agency applied

the statute according to its terms.   We perceive no basis for us

to disagree with its disposition of the matter.

    Affirmed.




                                                         A-4535-08T3
                               3