In re the Claim of Hammer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Hammer

263 A.D.2d 608, 703 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7691

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 263 A.D.2d 608 (In re the Claim of Hammer) 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 Hammer, 263 A.D.2d 608, 703 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 5, 1998, which, inter alia, reduced claimant’s weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate to zero.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reducing claimant’s benefit rate to zero. The record establishes that claimant’s pension was totally funded by his employer and that the amount of his pension payments exceeded the maximum weekly unemployment benefit rate of $300 (see, Labor Law § 590 [5]). Accordingly, claimant’s unemployment insurance benefits were properly reduced by the amount of his pension benefits (see, Labor Law § 600 [7]; Matter of De Salvo [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 619; Matter of Levin [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 642). Although claimant points out that he disclosed his receipt of pension benefits on his unemployment insurance application, he was nevertheless properly charged with a recoverable overpayment of benefits (see, Matter of Pinezic [Sweeney], 223 AD2d 898).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Peters 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 November 5, 1998, which, inter alia, reduced claimant’s weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate to zero.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reducing claimant’s benefit rate to zero. The record establishes that claimant’s pension was totally funded by his employer and that the amount of his pension payments exceeded the maximum weekly unemployment benefit rate of $300 (see, Labor Law § 590 [5]). Accordingly, claimant’s unemployment insurance benefits were properly reduced by the amount of his pension benefits (see, Labor Law § 600 [7]; Matter of De Salvo [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 619; Matter of Levin [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 642). Although claimant points out that he disclosed his receipt of pension benefits on his unemployment insurance application, he was nevertheless properly charged with a recoverable overpayment of benefits (see, Matter of Pinezic [Sweeney], 223 AD2d 898).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 608, 703 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-hammer-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack