From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Battista

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 21, 2007
45 A.D.3d 1151 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 502354.

November 21, 2007.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 20, 2006, which, among other things, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not available for employment.

Pasquale R. Battista, Las Vegas, Nevada, appellant prose.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ.


Claimant, who has a civil engineering degree, worked as a per diem substitute teacher for the Rochester City School District during the 2004-2005 academic year. His last day of work was on May 20, 2005. He obtained a job working for a disaster relief company and, when that job ended in September 2005, he applied for and received unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant chose to pursue employment prospects in his area of expertise and informed the district on September 30, 2005 that he was not available to work as a per diem substitute teacher during the 2005-2006 academic year. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently found that he was ineligible to receive benefits because he was not available for employment and charged him with a recoverable overpayment of $5,413.50. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. Insofar as claimant voluntarily removed himself from potential opportunities to work as a per diem substitute teacher during the time period in question, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that he was unavailable for work and, therefore, ineligible for benefits ( see e.g Matter of Anderson [Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1057, 1058; Matter of Messinger [Commissioner of Labor], 293 AD2d 903, 904). Claimant indicated that he was ready, willing and able to work when he certified for benefits and did not disclose the limitations on the type of work he was seeking. Consequently, the Board properly charged him with a recoverable overpayment under Labor Law § 597 (4).

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In re Battista

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 21, 2007
45 A.D.3d 1151 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

In re Battista

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of PASQUALE R. BATTISTA, Appellant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 21, 2007

Citations

45 A.D.3d 1151 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9172
844 N.Y.S.2d 910

Citing Cases

In re Solano

The record reflects that, although work was available, claimant requested to be laid off for personal and…

In re Claim of Solano v. Comm. of Lab.

The record reflects that, although work was available, claimant requested to be laid off for personal and…