In re the Claim of Nieblas

21 A.D.3d 1193, 801 N.Y.S.2d 102
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 22, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 1193 (In re the Claim of Nieblas) 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 Nieblas, 21 A.D.3d 1193, 801 N.Y.S.2d 102 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 26, 2004, which ruled that claimant was [1194]*1194ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was unable to file a valid original claim for benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 527.

Claimant, a clerical aide for a municipal social services agency, was discharged from his employment on October 11, 2002 due to his prolonged absence from work as a result of his incarceration for an alleged parole violation. Upon his release from prison on October 2, 2003, claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits by application effective October 20, 2003. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was unable to file a valid original claim and failed to comply with registration requirements. This appeal ensued.

Inasmuch as the record establishes that claimant did not have sufficient earnings in his base period or an alternative base period to qualify to file a valid original claim for benefits, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see Labor Law §§ 520, 527; Matter of Badrajan [Commissioner of Labor], 275 AD2d 830 [2000]). Furthermore, even if claimant’s application for benefits was backdated one year, his incarceration made him unavailable for work and, therefore, unable to satisfy the criteria for filing a valid original claim for benefits (see Labor Law § 527 [1] [a]; Matter of Opoka [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 718, 719 [1996]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, 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

Related

In re the Claim of Stennett
54 A.D.3d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Bellamy
34 A.D.3d 891 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re the Claim of Rodriguez
24 A.D.3d 934 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 A.D.3d 1193, 801 N.Y.S.2d 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-nieblas-nyappdiv-2005.