In re the Claim of Wells

101 A.D.3d 1212, 954 N.Y.2d 509

Opinion

[1213] The record confirms that claimant did not have sufficient earnings in either his basic or alternate base period to file a valid original claim pursuant to Labor Law § 527. For purposes of the basic condition, claimant’s base period covered the period of July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 (see Labor Law § 520 [1]). During this period, claimant was only employed for one calendar quarter and, therefore, did not satisfy the requirements of the basic condition (see Labor Law § 527 [1]; Matter of Stennett [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d 478, 479 [2008]). Turning to the alternate condition, claimant’s base period, covered the period of October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010 (see Labor Law § 520 [2]). Claimant earned $6,447.20 during this period and his high calendar quarter earnings were $4,741.60. As such, it is clear that claimant did not earn 11/2 times the high calendar quarter earnings during this period and, therefore, did not satisfy the alternate condition (see Labor Law § 527 [2]; Matter of Sotomayor [Commissioner of Labor], 34 AD3d 957, 958 [2006]).

Rose, J.P., Spain, Kavanagh, McCarthy 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

In re the Claim of Wells, 101 A.D.3d 1212, 954 N.Y.2d 509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

101 A.D.3d 1212 (In re the Claim of Wells) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Claim of Sotomayor
34 A.D.3d 957 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re the Claim of Stennett
54 A.D.3d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)