Matter of Padilla (Commissioner of Labor)

Matter of Padilla (Commissioner of Labor) 2016 NY Slip Op 00721 Decided on February 4, 2016 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: February 4, 2016
520572

[*1] In the Matter of the Claim of LUIS PADILLA, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

Calendar Date: December 8, 2015
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ.

Luis Padilla, New York City, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Ingrid Rousseau of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 6, 2014, which dismissed claimant's appeal from a decision of the Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

By decision dated August 25, 2014, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) affirmed an initial decision of the Department of Labor disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that his employment was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant did not appeal the ALJ's decision to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board until October 21, 2014. The Board dismissed the appeal as untimely and claimant now appeals.

We affirm. An appeal from an ALJ's decision must be made to the Board within 20 days after the mailing of the ALJ's notice of decision (see Labor Law § 621 [1]), and the statutory time limit is strictly construed (see Matter of Stephens [Commissioner

of Labor], 119 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2014]). The record establishes that claimant did not appeal until after the statutory time period and, significantly, offered no excuse for the delay. As such, the Board properly dismissed the appeal as untimely (see id.; Matter of Buchkin [Commissioner of Labor], 115 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2014]). Accordingly, the merits of the underlying determination denying claimant's request for unemployment insurance benefits are not properly before us (see Matter of Chetram [Newtek Bus. Servs.—Commissioner of Labor], 129 AD3d 1399, 1400 [2015]; Matter of Area Emporium LLC [Commissioner of Labor], 115 AD3d 1096, 1097 [2014]).

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.