In re the Claim of Savoie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Savoie

80 A.D.3d 1036, 916 N.Y.S.2d 259

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 80 A.D.3d 1036 (In re the Claim of Savoie) 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 Savoie, 80 A.D.3d 1036, 916 N.Y.S.2d 259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 14, 2009, which held that the employer’s experience rating account was chargeable for unemployment insurance benefits paid to claimant.

Claimant worked as a quality control manager for Joe Pietryka, Inc. (hereinafter the employer) for approximately six months before he voluntarily resigned abruptly in December 2007. Thereafter, he was employed by Atlantis Energy Systems from December 2007 until he was laid off in February 2009. Claimant then applied for unemployment insurance benefits, which were granted and charged in part to the employer’s experience rating account. The employer filed a protest, contending that, inasmuch as claimant had voluntarily left its employ without good cause, its account could not be charged for benefits paid to him. Ultimately, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board sustained the initial determination and the employer now appeals.

We affirm. Claimant worked for Atlantis and earned more than five times his weekly benefit rate, thereby removing the disqualification from receiving benefits that arose when he previously voluntarily left his employment with the employer (see Labor Law § 593 [1]; Matter of Perdue [Environmental Compliance, Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 47 AD3d 1139, 1141 [1037]*1037[2008]; Matter of Daley [Urban Justice Ctr. — Commissioner of Labor], 42 AD3d 839, 840 [2007]; Matter of Filetto [Union-Endicott Cent. School Dist. — Commissioner of Labor], 301 AD2d 772, 773 [2003]). Further, we must reject the employer’s argument that, pursuant to Labor Law § 581 (1) (e) (3), its account was improperly charged. Here, claimant did not apply for unemployment insurance benefits when he left the employer in December 2007, therefore no final determination was ever rendered that claimant’s loss of employment was voluntary, as required by the plain language of Labor Law § 581 (1) (e) (3) and, thus, that statute does not apply (see Matter of Daley [Urban Justice Ctr. — Commissioner of Labor], 42 AD3d at 840; Matter of Filetto [Union-Endicott Cent. School Dist. — Commissioner of Labor], 301 AD2d at 773).

The employer’s remaining claim is unpreserved for our review.

Spain, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh, Stein and Egan Jr., 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 September 14, 2009, which held that the employer’s experience rating account was chargeable for unemployment insurance benefits paid to claimant.

Claimant worked as a quality control manager for Joe Pietryka, Inc. (hereinafter the employer) for approximately six months before he voluntarily resigned abruptly in December 2007. Thereafter, he was employed by Atlantis Energy Systems from December 2007 until he was laid off in February 2009. Claimant then applied for unemployment insurance benefits, which were granted and charged in part to the employer’s experience rating account. The employer filed a protest, contending that, inasmuch as claimant had voluntarily left its employ without good cause, its account could not be charged for benefits paid to him. Ultimately, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board sustained the initial determination and the employer now appeals.

We affirm. Claimant worked for Atlantis and earned more than five times his weekly benefit rate, thereby removing the disqualification from receiving benefits that arose when he previously voluntarily left his employment with the employer (see Labor Law § 593 [1]; Matter of Perdue [Environmental Compliance, Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 47 AD3d 1139, 1141 [1037]*1037[2008]; Matter of Daley [Urban Justice Ctr. — Commissioner of Labor], 42 AD3d 839, 840 [2007]; Matter of Filetto [Union-Endicott Cent. School Dist. — Commissioner of Labor], 301 AD2d 772, 773 [2003]). Further, we must reject the employer’s argument that, pursuant to Labor Law § 581 (1) (e) (3), its account was improperly charged. Here, claimant did not apply for unemployment insurance benefits when he left the employer in December 2007, therefore no final determination was ever rendered that claimant’s loss of employment was voluntary, as required by the plain language of Labor Law § 581 (1) (e) (3) and, thus, that statute does not apply (see Matter of Daley [Urban Justice Ctr. — Commissioner of Labor], 42 AD3d at 840; Matter of Filetto [Union-Endicott Cent. School Dist. — Commissioner of Labor], 301 AD2d at 773).

The employer’s remaining claim is unpreserved for our review.

Spain, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.3d 1036, 916 N.Y.S.2d 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-savoie-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack