In re Claim of Saintalbord

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 6, 2015, which denied the application by Premier Care Staffing, Inc. to reopen a prior decision.

In October 2013, claimant’s employment was terminated for misconduct. Claimant’s subsequent application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied in a November 2013 initial determination on the basis that claimant was terminated for using his cell phone while driving. Claimant requested a hearing, and an Administrative Law Judge rendered a December 2013 default decision denying claimant benefits. Claimant’s subsequent applications to reopen were denied after claimant failed to appear for scheduled hearings.

Upon administrative appeal, in a July 2014 decision, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, among other things, granted claimant’s initial application to reopen the December 2013 default decision, finding that, because the notice of the hearing on his application to reopen the Administrative Law Judge’s December 2013 default decision was addressed to an incorrect residence, claimant did not receive notice of the hearing. An ensuing application to reopen by Premier Care Staffing, Inc. was denied by the Board in a November 2014 decision. In December 2014, Premier then applied to reopen the Board’s November 2014 decision, and that application was denied by the Board in a May 2015 decision, from which Premier now appeals.

We affirm. The Board’s decision to grant or deny an application to reopen “is within the discretion of the Board and, absent a showing that the Board abused its discretion, its decision will not be disturbed” (Matter of Becker [Commissioner of Labor], 108 AD3d 930 , 931 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Hughes [Commissioner of Labor], 136 AD3d 1085 , 1086 [2016]; see generally 12 NYCRR 463.6). Here, inasmuch as Premier dedicates its argument to challenging the merits of the Board’s underlying July 2014