In re the Claim of Wells

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Wells

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

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2012

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

Opinion

[1213]*1213The 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

[1213]*1213The 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 1212, 954 N.Y.2d 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-wells-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack