In re the Claim of Jeffares

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Jeffares

9 A.D.3d 770, 779 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9890

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

DecidedJuly 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 9 A.D.3d 770 (In re the Claim of Jeffares) 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 Jeffares, 9 A.D.3d 770, 779 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 17, 2003, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was unable to file a valid original claim pursuant to Labor Law § 527.

The record establishes that pursuant to an agreement with [771]*771the employer, claimant received her full salary until June 30, 2003, although she had stopped working for the employer on December 31, 2001 and performed no services for the employer thereafter. The agreement also provided that claimant would continue to receive the salary payments regardless of whether she found other employment. Despite the employer’s characterization of the payments as salary (see Matter of Woody [Roberts], 139 AD2d 879, 880 [1988]), substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s conclusion that the money received by claimant constituted a severance package, which cannot be considered as remuneration for the purpose of establishing a valid original claim for benefits (see Labor Law § 517 [2] [h]; § 524; see also Matter of Dymek [Sweeney], 240 AD2d 800 [1997]; Matter of Terranova [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 847 [1995]).

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen 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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 17, 2003, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was unable to file a valid original claim pursuant to Labor Law § 527.

The record establishes that pursuant to an agreement with [771]*771the employer, claimant received her full salary until June 30, 2003, although she had stopped working for the employer on December 31, 2001 and performed no services for the employer thereafter. The agreement also provided that claimant would continue to receive the salary payments regardless of whether she found other employment. Despite the employer’s characterization of the payments as salary (see Matter of Woody [Roberts], 139 AD2d 879, 880 [1988]), substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s conclusion that the money received by claimant constituted a severance package, which cannot be considered as remuneration for the purpose of establishing a valid original claim for benefits (see Labor Law § 517 [2] [h]; § 524; see also Matter of Dymek [Sweeney], 240 AD2d 800 [1997]; Matter of Terranova [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 847 [1995]).

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.3d 770, 779 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-jeffares-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack