In re the Claim of Brainin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Brainin

239 A.D.2d 639, 657 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4512

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

DecidedMay 1, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 639 (In re the Claim of Brainin) 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 Brainin, 239 A.D.2d 639, 657 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 11, 1995, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant’s benefit rate should be reduced.

After leaving his position as a technical writer for a contracting company, claimant received a lump-sum retirement payment which, he rolled over into an individual retirement account in lieu of receiving a monthly annuity. The retirement fund from which claimant was paid was fully financed by his employer. After claimant had applied for and received benefits, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board rendered a decision ruling that his benefit rate would be reduced to reflect his receipt of the employer-funded retirement payment. Claimant was also charged with a recoverable overpayment. We affirm. Labor Law § 600 (7) (b) provides that benefit rates must be reduced by the amount of any employer-funded pension benefits. This section applies whether such benefits are paid on a monthly basis or in the form of a lump sum (see, Matter of Chriscaden [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 803; Matter of Rolland [Eastman Kodak Co.—Sweeney], 232 AD2d 710). Accordingly, the Board’s decision will not be disturbed.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, 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 October 11, 1995, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant’s benefit rate should be reduced.

After leaving his position as a technical writer for a contracting company, claimant received a lump-sum retirement payment which, he rolled over into an individual retirement account in lieu of receiving a monthly annuity. The retirement fund from which claimant was paid was fully financed by his employer. After claimant had applied for and received benefits, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board rendered a decision ruling that his benefit rate would be reduced to reflect his receipt of the employer-funded retirement payment. Claimant was also charged with a recoverable overpayment. We affirm. Labor Law § 600 (7) (b) provides that benefit rates must be reduced by the amount of any employer-funded pension benefits. This section applies whether such benefits are paid on a monthly basis or in the form of a lump sum (see, Matter of Chriscaden [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 803; Matter of Rolland [Eastman Kodak Co.—Sweeney], 232 AD2d 710). Accordingly, the Board’s decision will not be disturbed.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 639, 657 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-brainin-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack