June 18, 2008
NICHOLAS J. TITUS, APPELLANT,
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INTERSTATE LOCKSMITH, RESPONDENTS.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 145,499.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued May 7, 2008
Before Judges Lisa and Lihotz.
After appellant was initially awarded unemployment benefits, his employer appealed and the Appeal Tribunal denied the benefits, finding that appellant left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. See N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). The decision of the Appeal Tribunal was mailed to appellant on April 20, 2007, with an accompanying notice of the right to appeal to the Board of Review (Board) within ten days of the mailing date. The notice stated that absent a filing within the ten days or a showing of good cause for extension of the filing date, the decision would become final.
Appellant filed an appeal with the Board, which was dated and postmarked May 8, 2007, eight days beyond the deadline. See N.J.A.C. 12:20-4.1(c) (postmark governs filing date of appeal filed by mail). Appellant proffered no reason for the late filing. The Board issued a final decision on June 12, 2007, dismissing the appeal as untimely. This appeal followed.
An administrative appeal to the Board must be filed within ten days of the Appeal Tribunal decision, in default of which the decision becomes final. N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(c). An exception exists if a claimant demonstrates good cause for the late filing. Rivera v. Bd. of Review, 127 N.J. 578, 586 (1992); N.J.A.C. 12:20-4.1(h).
Appellant has proffered no basis to support good cause for the late filing. Indeed, he has not stated any reason for the lateness.
We will not upset the determination of an agency unless it is shown that it was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or that the findings on which the decision was based were not supported by substantial credible evidence. Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963). The Board's decision here was in accordance with the governing law, was supported by the record, and was reasonable. We therefore have no occasion to interfere.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.