In re the Claim of Dymek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Dymek

240 A.D.2d 800, 658 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6037

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 5, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 4, 1996, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim.

Substantial evidence supports the decision denying claimant benefits. Claimant did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim because he received severance pay for one year prior to the filing of his application. This period does not constitute weeks of employment within [801] the meaning of Labor Law § 524 (see, Matter of Terranova [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 847); consequently, the finding of ineligibility is affirmed (see, Matter of Barrett [Hudacs], 191 AD2d 920, 921). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, 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 January 4, 1996, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim.

Substantial evidence supports the decision denying claimant benefits. Claimant did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim because he received severance pay for one year prior to the filing of his application. This period does not constitute weeks of employment within [801] the meaning of Labor Law § 524 (see, Matter of Terranova [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 847); consequently, the finding of ineligibility is affirmed (see, Matter of Barrett [Hudacs], 191 AD2d 920, 921). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

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

In re the Claim of Dymek, 240 A.D.2d 800, 658 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6037 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

240 A.D.2d 800 (In re the Claim of Dymek) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related