In re the Claim of Kirkikis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Kirkikis

224 A.D.2d 849, 637 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1276

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 849 (In re the Claim of Kirkikis) 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 Kirkikis, 224 A.D.2d 849, 637 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1276 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 24, 1994, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant’s benefit rate should be reduced to zero.

After leaving his position as an engineer for a telephone company, claimant received a lump-sum payment which he rolled over into an individual retirement account in lieu of receiving a monthly annuity. Taking into consideration the [850]*850value of the lump-sum payment, the Board reduced claimant’s benefit rate to zero and charged him with a recoverable overpayment of $300. Claimant argues that because he reinvested the lump-sum payment in an individual retirement account and did not receive any monthly payments from this account during the period at issue, the Board’s decision is erroneous. Labor Law § 600 (7) (b) provides for a pro rata reduction of unemployment insurance benefits by the amount of any employer-funded pension benefits. Inasmuch as this section applies regardless of whether such benefits are paid monthly or by a lump-sum distribution (see, Matter of Busman [Hartnett], 172 AD2d 939), we find claimant’s argument to be without merit. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Casey 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 August 24, 1994, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant’s benefit rate should be reduced to zero.

After leaving his position as an engineer for a telephone company, claimant received a lump-sum payment which he rolled over into an individual retirement account in lieu of receiving a monthly annuity. Taking into consideration the [850]*850value of the lump-sum payment, the Board reduced claimant’s benefit rate to zero and charged him with a recoverable overpayment of $300. Claimant argues that because he reinvested the lump-sum payment in an individual retirement account and did not receive any monthly payments from this account during the period at issue, the Board’s decision is erroneous. Labor Law § 600 (7) (b) provides for a pro rata reduction of unemployment insurance benefits by the amount of any employer-funded pension benefits. Inasmuch as this section applies regardless of whether such benefits are paid monthly or by a lump-sum distribution (see, Matter of Busman [Hartnett], 172 AD2d 939), we find claimant’s argument to be without merit. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 849, 637 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-kirkikis-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack