In re the Claim of Shapiro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Shapiro

52 A.D.3d 1139, 863 N.Y.S.2d 91

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

DecidedJune 26, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 1139 (In re the Claim of Shapiro) 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 Shapiro, 52 A.D.3d 1139, 863 N.Y.S.2d 91 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 4, 2007, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was employed in a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position within the meaning of Labor Law § 565 (2) (e).

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. The record reveals that claimant worked for the Incorporated Village of Muttontown as the Village Administrator. It is not disputed that the employer is a governmental entity and that claimant’s position was untenured. Moreover, the powers and duties of the position of Village Administrator were delineated by Local Law No. 1 (2005) of the Village of Muttontown, which included provisions establishing advisory and policymaking aspects of the job. Given the foregoing, the Board properly determined that Labor Law § 565 (2) (e) precluded claimant from obtaining benefits (see Matter of Newell [County of Nassau—Commissioner of Labor], 9 AD3d 559, 560 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 610 [2004]). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

[1140]*1140Mercure, J.P, Peters, Spain, Kane and Malone 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 October 4, 2007, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was employed in a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position within the meaning of Labor Law § 565 (2) (e).

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. The record reveals that claimant worked for the Incorporated Village of Muttontown as the Village Administrator. It is not disputed that the employer is a governmental entity and that claimant’s position was untenured. Moreover, the powers and duties of the position of Village Administrator were delineated by Local Law No. 1 (2005) of the Village of Muttontown, which included provisions establishing advisory and policymaking aspects of the job. Given the foregoing, the Board properly determined that Labor Law § 565 (2) (e) precluded claimant from obtaining benefits (see Matter of Newell [County of Nassau—Commissioner of Labor], 9 AD3d 559, 560 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 610 [2004]). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

[1140]*1140Mercure, J.P, Peters, Spain, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 1139, 863 N.Y.S.2d 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-shapiro-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack