In re the Claim of Cannizzaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Cannizzaro

256 A.D.2d 846, 681 N.Y.S.2d 815

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1998

DocketClaim No. 1; Claim No. 2

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 846 (In re the Claim of Cannizzaro) 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 Cannizzaro, 256 A.D.2d 846, 681 N.Y.S.2d 815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Crew III, J.

Appeal (in claim No. 1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 19, 1997, which granted claimant’s application to reopen and reconsider a prior decision of the Board and which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because she had received a reasonable assurance of continued employment.

Appeal (in claim No. 2) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 6, 1997, which ruled that claimant was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because he had received a reasonable assurance of continued employment.

Claimants were employed as temporary teachers by the Buffalo Board of Education during the 1994-1995 academic year. In June 1995, claimants were advised by letter that they would be reemployed during the then-upcoming 1995-1996 academic year. Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing that followed, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board concluded that such letter constituted a reasonable assurance of continued employment and, hence, denied claimants’ respective applications for benefits. These appeals ensued.

We affirm. “Whether a claimant received a reasonable assurance of employment is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and such determination, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed” (Matter of Makis [Tompkins-Seneca-Tioga Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs.—Commissioner of Labor], 251 AD2d 928, 929). Based upon our review of the voluminous record in these matters, we are persuaded that the Board’s decisions indeed are supported by substantial evidence and, accordingly, must be affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

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

Crew III, J.

Appeal (in claim No. 1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 19, 1997, which granted claimant’s application to reopen and reconsider a prior decision of the Board and which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because she had received a reasonable assurance of continued employment.

Appeal (in claim No. 2) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 6, 1997, which ruled that claimant was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because he had received a reasonable assurance of continued employment.

Claimants were employed as temporary teachers by the Buffalo Board of Education during the 1994-1995 academic year. In June 1995, claimants were advised by letter that they would be reemployed during the then-upcoming 1995-1996 academic year. Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing that followed, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board concluded that such letter constituted a reasonable assurance of continued employment and, hence, denied claimants’ respective applications for benefits. These appeals ensued.

We affirm. “Whether a claimant received a reasonable assurance of employment is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and such determination, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed” (Matter of Makis [Tompkins-Seneca-Tioga Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs.—Commissioner of Labor], 251 AD2d 928, 929). Based upon our review of the voluminous record in these matters, we are persuaded that the Board’s decisions indeed are supported by substantial evidence and, accordingly, must be affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 846, 681 N.Y.S.2d 815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-cannizzaro-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack