Matter of Odom (Commissioner of Labor)

Annotate this Case
Matter of Odom (Commissioner of Labor) 2015 NY Slip Op 06861 Decided on September 17, 2015 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: September 17, 2015
520611

[*1] DESIREE ODOM, Appellant.

and

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

Calendar Date: August 10, 2015
Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ.

A. Lunard Odom Law Firm, PC, East Elmhurst (Alfred Odom of counsel), for appellant.



MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 21, 2014, which, upon reconsideration, ruled, among other things, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct.

Claimant challenges a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which, upon reconsideration, found that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she had been terminated due to misconduct. The record establishes that, at the commencement of the hearing, claimant informed the Administrative Law Judge that her attorney was unavailable, but that she "would like for him to come" to the hearing. Nevertheless, the Administrative Law Judge continued to question claimant until she agreed to proceed pro se. We find that claimant's right to have counsel present was violated under these circumstances, and remit for further proceedings (see 12 NYCRR 461.4 [c]; Matter of Milrad [Levine] , 44 AD2d 287, 289-290 [1974]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.