James Matarozzo d/b/a M&M Cleaning v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0113, James Matarozzo d/b/a M&M
Cleaning v. New Hampshire Department of Employment
Security, the court on May 21, 2018, issued the following order:

Having considered the brief, the memorandum of law, and the record
submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this
case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The petitioner, James Matarozzo d/b/a M&M Cleaning (employer), appeals
an order of the Superior Court (O’Neill, J.) granting the motion to dismiss his
declaratory judgment action, in favor of the respondent, the New Hampshire
Department of Employment Security (department), on the basis that it lacked
jurisdiction. See RSA 282-A:67, II (2010). He contends that the trial court erred
because: (1) he did not receive the notice the department sent and, accordingly,
“is entitled to a remedy outside the scope of RSA 282-A,” but see RSA 282-A:68
(2010) (stating “judicial review provided by RSA 282-A:67 shall be exclusive of all
other methods of judicial review of unemployment compensation decisions” and
“[n]o unemployment compensation decision shall be questioned . . . by any court
. . . except in accordance with the provisions of this section and RSA 282-A:67”);
(2) his remedy was a declaratory judgment, but see id.; (3) it “ignore[d his] general
due process rights”; (4) he received one assessment and then a second larger
assessment “with no notice of how the assessments had been made, and no
explanation for the difference between the two assessments”; and (5) exhausting
his administrative remedies would have been “futile” after he missed the deadline
for an administrative appeal, but see RSA 282-A:95 (2010) (providing that
commissioner may extend the time for filing administrative appeal).

As the appealing party, the employer has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the employer’s challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the employer
has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

Lynn, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk