In re the Claim of Hall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Hall

285 A.D.2d 777, 728 N.Y.S.2d 560, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7414

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

DecidedJuly 12, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 777 (In re the Claim of Hall) 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 Hall, 285 A.D.2d 777, 728 N.Y.S.2d 560, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 15, 2000, which reduced claimant’s weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate to zero.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reducing claimant’s unemployment insurance benefit rate to zero. When claimant’s job was abolished, he chose one of three early retirement plans offered by the employer. Inasmuch as the record establishes that the retirement package was fully funded by the employer, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision (see, Labor Law § 600 [7]; see also, Matter of Cohen [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 934; Matter of Richmond [Roberts], 96 AD2d 1132).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters 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

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 15, 2000, which reduced claimant’s weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate to zero.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reducing claimant’s unemployment insurance benefit rate to zero. When claimant’s job was abolished, he chose one of three early retirement plans offered by the employer. Inasmuch as the record establishes that the retirement package was fully funded by the employer, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision (see, Labor Law § 600 [7]; see also, Matter of Cohen [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 934; Matter of Richmond [Roberts], 96 AD2d 1132).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 777, 728 N.Y.S.2d 560, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-hall-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack