In re the Claim of Cale

46 A.D.3d 1065, 847 N.Y.S.2d 296
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 13, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 1065 (In re the Claim of Cale) 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 Cale, 46 A.D.3d 1065, 847 N.Y.S.2d 296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 7, 2006, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not available for employment.

Claimant, a Canadian national, worked as a social worker at [1066]*1066New York University Medical Center (hereinafter NYUMC) under a Trade NAFTA visa (hereinafter TN visa). She held two positions, one in the inpatient portion of the medical center and the other in the emergency room. After her inpatient position was eliminated, she applied for partial unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that she was ineligible to receive them because she was not available for employment. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. In order to be considered available for work and, therefore, eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits, a non-United States citizen must have valid authorization from the Immigration and Naturalization Service to work in the United States (see Matter of Enrique [Commissioner of Labor], 13 AD3d 967, 968 [2004]; Matter of Okumakpeyi [Commissioner of Labor], 295 AD2d 828, 829 [2002]). Like the claimant in Matter of Graif (Commissioner of Labor) (250 AD2d 1012 [1998]), claimant here was working under a TN visa which restricted the work she was authorized to perform to a particular employer, namely, NYUMC. When her employment with NYUMC was reduced, she was not authorized to seek employment with a different employer until she obtained another visa. In view of this, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant was not available for employment such as to be eligible for benefits.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, 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

Related

Matter of Anazonwu (Commissioner of Labor)
2025 NY Slip Op 07067 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Elhannon Wholesale Nursery, Inc. (Commissioner of Labor)
2024 NY Slip Op 01217 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Matter of Derfert (Commissioner of Labor)
2017 NY Slip Op 4016 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Makutoff v. Board of Review
48 A.3d 362 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2012)
In re the Claim of Bruyne
95 A.D.3d 1590 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 A.D.3d 1065, 847 N.Y.S.2d 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-cale-nyappdiv-2007.