LISA R. ANDERSON v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4676-04T34676-04T3

LISA R. ANDERSON,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR, and HUNTLEIGH U.S.A.,

Respondents.

___________________________________

 

Submitted December 7, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Wefing and Fuentes.

On appeal from the Board of Review,

Department of Labor.

Appellant submitted a pro se brief.

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent Board of Review (Patrick DeAlmeida,

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Allan J.

Nodes, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

No brief was submitted on behalf of respondent

Huntleigh U.S.A.

PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals from a Final Decision of the Board of Review denying her application for unemployment compensation. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

Petitioner in her brief has addressed the merits of her unemployment compensation claim. Petitioner's initial application for unemployment compensation benefits was denied by the deputy, and a hearing was held before the Appeal Tribunal which, in turn, denied her application. Petitioner then filed an appeal with Board of Review. She has appealed to us from the Board's order denying her application.

Within her brief, petitioner has addressed the merits of her unemployment compensation claim. The Board of Review, however, did not address the substantive merits of her claim but denied her appeal because it was untimely under N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(c). Petitioner has not provided any explanation for the untimely filing and thus failed to establish that good cause existed for the late filing. Rivera v. Bd. of Review, N.J. Dep't of Labor, 127 N.J. 578 (1992).

 
The decision of the Board of Review is neither arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable and is thus affirmed. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-4676-04T3

December 22, 2005

 


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.