IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 
DANIEL M. RANIERI,) 
) 
Appellant, ) 
) 
v. ) 
) C.A. No. 02A-02-011 CG 
) 
HENRY CLAUSEN , ARLENE C. ) 
ESKIN, PEPI’S GRILLE and ) 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) 
APPEAL BOARD, ) 
) 
Appellee. ) 
Date Submitted: May 8, 2002 
Date Decided: September 24, 2002 
ORDER 
On Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss 
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Granted. 
Daniel M . Ranieri, Thornton, Pennsylvania, pro se, Appellant. 
Stephani Ballard, Deputy Attorney General, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appellee, 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. 
Melvin A. Woloshin, Esq., Woloshin, Tenenbaum, Lynch, Natalie & Gagne, P.A., 
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appellees, Henry Clausen and Arlene C. Eskin. 
Goldstein, J. 

This 24th day of September, 2002, upon consideration of the record in this case 
and the papers filed by the parties, it appears to the Court that: 

(1) On, July 3, 2001, the Unem ployment Insurance Appeal Board issued a 
written decision denying Claimant, Daniel M. Ranieri, unemployment compensation benefits. 
The Board mailed the decision to Ranieri on the same date. The Board’s decision contained 
a notice of Ranieri’s right to appeal as well as notification that the Board’s decision became 
final on July 13, 2001. 

(2) Ranieri filed a Notice of Appeal of the Board’s decision with the Court 
on February 19, 2002. In his N otice of Appeal, Ranieri states that he has been incarcerated 
in Pennsylvania since June 1, 2001. Appellee, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, 
has filed a Motion to Dismiss Ranieri’s appeal on the basis that this Court is without 
jurisdiction to consider R anieri’s u ntimely appeal. 

(3) Nineteen Del. C. § 3323(a) provides that, "[w]ithin 10 days after the 
decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board has become final, any party 
aggrieved thereby may secure judicial review thereof by commencing an action in the 
Superior Court in the County in which the claimant resides " Under the language of the 
statute, Ranieri’s appeal, filed over six months late, is clearly untimely. 
(4) It is well-settled that failure to file a timely appeal divests the Court of 
jurisdiction. 1 The jurisdictional defect that is created cannot be excused except in the 
presence of "exceptional circumstances that are attributable to court personnel and are not 
attributable to the appellant or the appellant’s attorney." 2 

(5) The Court has determined that the Board’s decision becamefinal on July 
13, 2001. Ranieri had until July 27, 2001 to file his appeal with this Court. Ranieri did not 
file an appeal until February 19, 2002, over six months late. Ranieri’s failure to file a timely 
appeal causes this Court to lose jurisdiction over the matter. Ranieri has presented no 
evidence that the lateness of his appeal can be attributed to court personnel. In his response 
to Appellee’s motion, Ranieri states again that he has been incarcerated since June 1, 2001 
and that he did receive notice "Pepi’s filed an appeal." The Court finds that Ranieri has 
presented no evidence that the appeal he filed with this Court was untimely due to any failure 
on behalf of Court personnel. 

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Ranieri’s 
appeal is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Carl Goldstein, Judge 
oc: Prothonotary 
2 Id. 
3