Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Agency's failing to appear at an administrative hearing may have adverse consequences

Failing to appear at an administrative hearing may have adverse consequences
Aures v Buffalo Board of Education, 272 AD2d 664

The Aures decision demonstrates the problem that could result if a party fails to appear at an administrative hearing as scheduled -- the hearing officer may hold the hearing in absentia and the determination will be binding on the parties.

Although it had not participated in the administrative hearing, the Buffalo Board of Education [Buffalo] attempted to overturn a determination by an Unemployment Insurance Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] holding that Karen M. Aures was eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

Aures, one of number of temporary teachers employed during academic 1996-1997, had applied for unemployment insurance benefits at the end of the school year. The local office of the Division of Unemployment Insurance found that Aures had received reasonable assurances of continued employment for the next academic year and disapproved her application for benefits. Aures appealed.

The key to a teacher?s eligibility for unemployment insurance between school years depends on his or her receiving a reasonable assurance of reemployment for the next school year within the meaning of Section 590(10) of the Labor Law.

An administrative hearing was scheduled but Buffalo failed to appear at the hearing. The Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] elected to proceed to hold the hearing notwithstanding Buffalo?s absence. The bottom line: the ALJ overruled the initial determination, holding Aures was eligible to receive benefits.

When Buffalo learned of the decision, it asked the ALJ to reopen the case. The ALJ denied Buffalo?s motion and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board [Board] affirmed the ALJ?s ruling. Buffalo subsequently asked the Board to reconsider its decision concerning Buffalo?s motion to reopen the matter. The Board agreed to do so, but ultimately decided to adhere to its previous ruling that sustained the ALJ?s determination denying Buffalo?s request to reopen the hearing. Buffalo appealed.

Why didn?t had Buffalo appear at the hearing before the ALJ? According to the court, Buffalo?s excuse for its not appearing at the hearing as scheduled: the unavailability of certain key witnesses.

The Appellate Division was not impressed by this argument. Noting that the key witnesses in question were under Buffalo?s control, the court said that ?[h]aving elected to assign such witnesses to their regular duties rather than directing them to attend the scheduled hearings, [Buffalo] cannot now be heard to complain.?

The court affirmed the Board?s rejection of Buffalo?s motion to reopen the matter, explaining that the decision to grant an application to reopen lies within the discretion of the Board.

Unless it can be shown that the Board abused its discretion, the Board?s decision will not be disturbed by the courts. The Appellate Division decided that the record supported a finding that Board had not abused its discretion and dismissed Buffalo?s appeal.
.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on February 25, 2011 (boomark / email).