In re the Claim of Caronna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Caronna

241 A.D.2d 651, 660 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7369

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

DecidedJuly 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 651 (In re the Claim of Caronna) 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 Caronna, 241 A.D.2d 651, 660 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 23, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he did not comply with the reporting requirements.

Claimant was given the “privilege” (12 NYCRR 473.2 [b]) of using a touch-tone telephone to certify his continued eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits rather than being [652]*652required to personally appear each week at the unemployment insurance office. To this end, he was given a confidential personal identification, number to serve as his electronic signature. Claimant was informed of the requirement that he not disclose this number to anyone or let anyone else certify benefits on his behalf. He violated this rule when he revealed the number to his wife who certified benefits for him. Under these circumstances, we find substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision ruling that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because he failed to comply with the reporting requirements (see, Labor Law § 596 [3]; see also, Matter of Howard [Levine], 43 AD2d 52, 54) and that the benefits he did receive were recoverable (see, Labor Law § 597 [4]).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey and Spain, 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

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 23, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he did not comply with the reporting requirements.

Claimant was given the “privilege” (12 NYCRR 473.2 [b]) of using a touch-tone telephone to certify his continued eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits rather than being [652]*652required to personally appear each week at the unemployment insurance office. To this end, he was given a confidential personal identification, number to serve as his electronic signature. Claimant was informed of the requirement that he not disclose this number to anyone or let anyone else certify benefits on his behalf. He violated this rule when he revealed the number to his wife who certified benefits for him. Under these circumstances, we find substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision ruling that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because he failed to comply with the reporting requirements (see, Labor Law § 596 [3]; see also, Matter of Howard [Levine], 43 AD2d 52, 54) and that the benefits he did receive were recoverable (see, Labor Law § 597 [4]).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 651, 660 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-caronna-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack