In re the Claim of Wasserman

251 A.D.2d 883, 675 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7418
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 18, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 883 (In re the Claim of Wasserman) 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 Wasserman, 251 A.D.2d 883, 675 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 7, 1997, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive additional unemployment insurance benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 599 (2).

While claimant was receiving unemployment insurance benefits, he completed an approved employment training course with a certificate in typing and data entry. He thereafter attended job placement classes at the same training facility. Upon exhausting his regular benefits, claimant applied for additional benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 599 based upon the job placement classes. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied additional benefits on the ground that the job [884]*884placement classes did not constitute an approved “career and related training program” under 12 NYCRR 482.2 (b). We affirm. The additional benefits provided by Labor Law § 599 are only available to a claimant enrolled in an approved career and related training program, which is defined as a training program “clearly leading to the qualifications or skills for a specific occupation, including but not limited to basic education skills, occupational skills training and skills upgrading” (12 NYCRR 482.2 [b]; see, 12 NYCRR 482.1 [a]). Notwithstanding that claimant may have continued refining his typing and computer skills while enrolled in the job placement classes, the record reveals that the classes were designed to assist with generalized resume writing and job interview techniques. We therefore perceive no reason to disturb the Board’s determination denying claimant’s application for additional benefits.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, 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

Related

Matter of Mullane (Commissioner of Labor)
2018 NY Slip Op 5646 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
In re the Claim of Schroder
38 A.D.3d 1142 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re the Claim of Romain
8 A.D.3d 869 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Claim of Winston
307 A.D.2d 574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 A.D.2d 883, 675 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-wasserman-nyappdiv-1998.