In re the Claim of Babcock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Babcock

106 A.D.3d 1316, 965 N.Y.S.2d 240

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 16, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.3d 1316 (In re the Claim of Babcock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Claim of Babcock, 106 A.D.3d 1316, 965 N.Y.S.2d 240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 7, 2011, which, among other things, charged claimant with a recoverable overpayment of emergency unemployment compensation benefits.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that Labor Law § 600 (7) required a reduction in claimant’s benefit rate following his receipt of payments from his union pension. Claimant was further charged with a recoverable overpayment of $8,439 in federally funded emergency unemployment compensation benefits, and the Board rejected his application for a waiver of repayment (see Pub L 110-252, tit IV, § 4001 et seq., 122 US Stat 2323; Matter of Umpierre [Commissioner of Labor], 80 AD3d 1123, 1123 [2011]). Substantial evidence supports the finding that claimant’s former employers fully funded his pension, “thereby triggering the statutory reduction in benefit payments” (Matter of Johnson [Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 804, 805 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 803 [1999]; see Labor Law § 600 [7]; Matter of Sanchez [Commissioner of Labor], 56 AD3d 846, 847 [2008]). Inasmuch as claimant’s monthly income significantly exceeded his expenses, substantial evidence further supports the Board’s determination “that a waiver of repayment was not called for as a matter of equity or good conscience” (Matter of Silver [Commissioner of Labor], 84 AD3d 1634, 1635 [2011]).

Stein, J.E, Spain, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 7, 2011, which, among other things, charged claimant with a recoverable overpayment of emergency unemployment compensation benefits.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that Labor Law § 600 (7) required a reduction in claimant’s benefit rate following his receipt of payments from his union pension. Claimant was further charged with a recoverable overpayment of $8,439 in federally funded emergency unemployment compensation benefits, and the Board rejected his application for a waiver of repayment (see Pub L 110-252, tit IV, § 4001 et seq., 122 US Stat 2323; Matter of Umpierre [Commissioner of Labor], 80 AD3d 1123, 1123 [2011]). Substantial evidence supports the finding that claimant’s former employers fully funded his pension, “thereby triggering the statutory reduction in benefit payments” (Matter of Johnson [Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 804, 805 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 803 [1999]; see Labor Law § 600 [7]; Matter of Sanchez [Commissioner of Labor], 56 AD3d 846, 847 [2008]). Inasmuch as claimant’s monthly income significantly exceeded his expenses, substantial evidence further supports the Board’s determination “that a waiver of repayment was not called for as a matter of equity or good conscience” (Matter of Silver [Commissioner of Labor], 84 AD3d 1634, 1635 [2011]).

Stein, J.E, Spain, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 1316, 965 N.Y.S.2d 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-babcock-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack