In re the Claim of Cortorreal

32 A.D.3d 1126, 821 N.Y.S.2d 479
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 28, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 1126 (In re the Claim of Cortorreal) 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 Cortorreal, 32 A.D.3d 1126, 821 N.Y.S.2d 479 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 20, 2005, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she had a reasonable assurance of continued employment.

Claimant was employed as a per diem substitute teacher for a school district and worked 127 days during the 2004-2005 school year. At the end of the school year, the district sent her a letter assuring her that her employment during the 2005-2006 school year would be similar. She nevertheless applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that she was ineligible to receive benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 590 (10) because she had received a reasonable assurance of continued employment from the district. Claimant appeals.

[1127]*1127We 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 [1998] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Aloia [Commissioner of Labor], 278 AD2d 650, 651 [2000]). Here, in addition to the district’s letter, the assistant principal testified that she anticipated calling claimant to work during the 2005-2006 school year just as much as she had the prior year. Claimant acknowledged that she had received an assurance of continued work. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, 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

In re the Claim of Schwartz
68 A.D.3d 1323 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Marin
67 A.D.3d 1292 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Jeanty
65 A.D.3d 1437 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Papapietro
34 A.D.3d 956 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 A.D.3d 1126, 821 N.Y.S.2d 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-cortorreal-nyappdiv-2006.