In re the Claim of Skinder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Skinder

226 A.D.2d 796, 640 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3433

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

DecidedApril 4, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 796 (In re the Claim of Skinder) 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 Skinder, 226 A.D.2d 796, 640 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 5, 1994, which, inter alia, reduced claimant’s weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate.

[797]*797After being laid off from his position as an electronics technician, claimant received retirement benefits from his former employer which he rolled over into an individual retirement account. Although he initially received full unemployment insurance benefits, the Board later reduced claimant’s benefit rate based upon his receipt of retirement benefits and charged him with a recoverable overpayment of $740. Claimant challenges the Board’s decision, arguing that other similarly situated employees received unemployment insurance benefits without reduction notwithstanding their receipt of the same type of retirement benefits. Labor Law § 600 (7) clearly provides for a reduction in unemployment insurance benefits where a worker receives retirement benefits such as those received by claimant in the case at bar (see, Matter of Favorito [Hudacs], 195 AD2d 679, lv denied 82 NY2d 660; Matter of Busman [Hartnett], 172 AD2d 939). In view of this, as well as claimant’s failure to substantiate his claim that the benefits of other similarly situated employees were not reduced, we find claimant’s argument to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, 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 April 5, 1994, which, inter alia, reduced claimant’s weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate.

[797]*797After being laid off from his position as an electronics technician, claimant received retirement benefits from his former employer which he rolled over into an individual retirement account. Although he initially received full unemployment insurance benefits, the Board later reduced claimant’s benefit rate based upon his receipt of retirement benefits and charged him with a recoverable overpayment of $740. Claimant challenges the Board’s decision, arguing that other similarly situated employees received unemployment insurance benefits without reduction notwithstanding their receipt of the same type of retirement benefits. Labor Law § 600 (7) clearly provides for a reduction in unemployment insurance benefits where a worker receives retirement benefits such as those received by claimant in the case at bar (see, Matter of Favorito [Hudacs], 195 AD2d 679, lv denied 82 NY2d 660; Matter of Busman [Hartnett], 172 AD2d 939). In view of this, as well as claimant’s failure to substantiate his claim that the benefits of other similarly situated employees were not reduced, we find claimant’s argument to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 796, 640 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-skinder-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack