In re the Claim of Louis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Louis

12 A.D.3d 889, 784 N.Y.S.2d 720, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13797

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 889 (In re the Claim of Louis) 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 Louis, 12 A.D.3d 889, 784 N.Y.S.2d 720, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 8, 2004, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was not entitled to receive a trade readjustment allowance under the federal Trade Act of 1974.

Following claimant’s separation from employment in June 2001, she applied for and received a trade readjustment allowance (TRA) pursuant to the federal Trade Act of 1974 (see 19 USC § 2271 et seq.). She began to receive the TRA in March 2002, which ran, excepting a period where she received temporary extended unemployment benefits in lieu of the TRA, through December 2002. The Department of Labor did not pay claimant an additional TRA when the TRA ended, holding that her application was made past the deadline set by federal regulations governing the additional TRA (see 20 CFR 617.15). Claimant requested a hearing and, following several defaults, a hearing and subsequent remittal by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, an Administrative Law Judge upheld the Department’s determination. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. The regulations governing eligibility for an additional TRA require that claimant make a bona fide application for training, meaning a signed application containing, among other things, the specific training that claimant will undergo, “within 210 days after the date of the first certification under which [she] is covered” or of claimant’s most recent separation under that certification, whichever is later (20 CFR 617.15 [b] [2]; see 20 CFR 617.3 [i], [j]). The later of the two dates is claimant’s separation from employment, which was June 22, 2001, requiring that claimant’s application be made by January 18, 2002. The record indicates that no such application was made or approved until June 17, 2002. Even using claimant’s earliest application for a TRA in February 2002—which appears to be insufficient due to the Department’s waiver of the train[890]*890ing requirement at that time and testimony that the earlier application only determined claimant’s eligibility and was not a bona fide application for training—claimant would still be ineligible for an additional TRA. Under the circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant is not entitled to an additional TRA (see Matter of Brodie [Commissioner of Labor], 261 AD2d 732, 732-733 [1999]).

Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Rose 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

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 8, 2004, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was not entitled to receive a trade readjustment allowance under the federal Trade Act of 1974.

Following claimant’s separation from employment in June 2001, she applied for and received a trade readjustment allowance (TRA) pursuant to the federal Trade Act of 1974 (see 19 USC § 2271 et seq.). She began to receive the TRA in March 2002, which ran, excepting a period where she received temporary extended unemployment benefits in lieu of the TRA, through December 2002. The Department of Labor did not pay claimant an additional TRA when the TRA ended, holding that her application was made past the deadline set by federal regulations governing the additional TRA (see 20 CFR 617.15). Claimant requested a hearing and, following several defaults, a hearing and subsequent remittal by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, an Administrative Law Judge upheld the Department’s determination. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. The regulations governing eligibility for an additional TRA require that claimant make a bona fide application for training, meaning a signed application containing, among other things, the specific training that claimant will undergo, “within 210 days after the date of the first certification under which [she] is covered” or of claimant’s most recent separation under that certification, whichever is later (20 CFR 617.15 [b] [2]; see 20 CFR 617.3 [i], [j]). The later of the two dates is claimant’s separation from employment, which was June 22, 2001, requiring that claimant’s application be made by January 18, 2002. The record indicates that no such application was made or approved until June 17, 2002. Even using claimant’s earliest application for a TRA in February 2002—which appears to be insufficient due to the Department’s waiver of the train[890]*890ing requirement at that time and testimony that the earlier application only determined claimant’s eligibility and was not a bona fide application for training—claimant would still be ineligible for an additional TRA. Under the circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant is not entitled to an additional TRA (see Matter of Brodie [Commissioner of Labor], 261 AD2d 732, 732-733 [1999]).

Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 889, 784 N.Y.S.2d 720, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-louis-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack