In re the Claim of Krumholtz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Krumholtz

263 A.D.2d 609, 692 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7689

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D.2d 609 (In re the Claim of Krumholtz) 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 Krumholtz, 263 A.D.2d 609, 692 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 10, 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. Contrary to claimant’s argument, it is apparent from a reading of Labor Law § 600 (7) that this reduction was applicable under the circumstances herein despite the fact that claimant resigned rather than retired from his position. Claimant opted to receive his employer-financed pension in a lump sum, as opposed to monthly payments, which was then reinvested in an IRA annuity account, and the pro-rated weekly amount of such payment exceeded the maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate of $300 (see, Labor Law § 590 [5]; § 600 [7] [b]). Accordingly, claimant’s unemployment insurance benefits were properly reduced to zero (see, Matter of Brainin [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 639; Matter of Kaplan [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 738, 739). Finally, claimant was properly charged with a recoverable overpayment of benefits (see, Matter of Brainin [Sweeney], supra). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 10, 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. Contrary to claimant’s argument, it is apparent from a reading of Labor Law § 600 (7) that this reduction was applicable under the circumstances herein despite the fact that claimant resigned rather than retired from his position. Claimant opted to receive his employer-financed pension in a lump sum, as opposed to monthly payments, which was then reinvested in an IRA annuity account, and the pro-rated weekly amount of such payment exceeded the maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate of $300 (see, Labor Law § 590 [5]; § 600 [7] [b]). Accordingly, claimant’s unemployment insurance benefits were properly reduced to zero (see, Matter of Brainin [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 639; Matter of Kaplan [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 738, 739). Finally, claimant was properly charged with a recoverable overpayment of benefits (see, Matter of Brainin [Sweeney], supra). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 609, 692 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-krumholtz-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack