Matter of Hickman (Commissioner of Labor)

Matter of Hickman (Commissioner of Labor) 2013 NY Slip Op 07232 Decided on November 7, 2013 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: November 7, 2013
515933 In the Matter of the Claim of

[*1]WARREN HICKMAN, Respondent. MAXIMUM LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC, Appellant.

and

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

Calendar Date: October 15, 2013
Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ.


Hoguet, Newman, Regal & Kenney, LLP, New York
City (Juan A. Skirrow of counsel), for appellant.
James W. Cooper, Warrensburg, for Warren Hickman,
respondent.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York
City (Steven Koton of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor,
respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Peters, P.J.

Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 9, 2012, which ruled that the employer's request for a hearing was untimely.

By initial determination dated and mailed January 13, 2011, claimant was deemed eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits based upon a finding that he and others similarly situated were employees of Maximum Litigation Support Services, LLC. By letter dated March 7, 2011, Maximum Litigation requested a hearing challenging that determination. Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge found that Maximum Litigation's request for a hearing was untimely and continued in effect the initial determination. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed and these appeals ensued.

The record clearly establishes that Maximum Litigation did not request a hearing within the 30-day time period set forth in Labor Law § 620 (2). Notwithstanding Maximum Litigation's [*2]excuse for the belated hearing request, "the statutory time period in which to request a hearing is to be strictly construed, and the statute contains no provision permitting an extension of time in which an employer can request a hearing" (Matter of White [Lurie-Commissioner of Labor], 49 AD3d 932, 933 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Matter of Agarwal [Bilingual Seit & Preschool, Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 108 AD3d 807, 808 [2013]). As such, the Board's decisions will not be disturbed. Maximum Litigation's remaining claims, including that the Department of Labor's letter dated March 24, 2011 constituted a new initial determination, have been examined and found to be without merit.

McCarthy, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.