In re the Claim of Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Johnson

256 A.D.2d 804, 681 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13349

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 804 (In re the Claim of Johnson) 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 Johnson, 256 A.D.2d 804, 681 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 10, 1998, which, inter alia, reduced claimant’s weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate to zero.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that Labor Law § 600 (7) required a reduction in claimant’s benefit rate reflecting his receipt of payments from his military pen[805]*805sion. Claimant also was charged with a recoverable overpayment of benefits. We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the finding that claimant’s Federal pension fund was 100% funded by the employer, thereby triggering the statutory reduction in benefit payments (see, Matter of Levin [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 642; Matter of Chriscaden [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 803; see also, Matter of Manheim [Levine], 49 AD2d 986). Finally, although claimant also maintains that he is entitled to unemployment insurance benefits for the month between his retirement and the commencement of his pension payments, we note that the employer’s representative testified that the pension payments covered this time period despite the lag in payment. The remaining contentions advanced by claimant have been reviewed and found to be unpersuasive.

White, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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 10, 1998, which, inter alia, reduced claimant’s weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate to zero.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that Labor Law § 600 (7) required a reduction in claimant’s benefit rate reflecting his receipt of payments from his military pen[805]*805sion. Claimant also was charged with a recoverable overpayment of benefits. We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the finding that claimant’s Federal pension fund was 100% funded by the employer, thereby triggering the statutory reduction in benefit payments (see, Matter of Levin [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 642; Matter of Chriscaden [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 803; see also, Matter of Manheim [Levine], 49 AD2d 986). Finally, although claimant also maintains that he is entitled to unemployment insurance benefits for the month between his retirement and the commencement of his pension payments, we note that the employer’s representative testified that the pension payments covered this time period despite the lag in payment. The remaining contentions advanced by claimant have been reviewed and found to be unpersuasive.

White, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 804, 681 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-johnson-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack