From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Vasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 5, 2007
42 A.D.3d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 501764.

July 5, 2007.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 17, 2006, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive additional unemployment insurance benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 599.

Elido F. Vasquez Jr., East Elmhurst, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (Dawn A. Foshee of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.


Claimant worked full time for the United States Army National Guard for approximately five years. During his tenure, he held the positions of administrative clerk, crisis counselor and, most recently, security guard. Thereafter, claimant began attending a community college and enrolled in a two-year course of study to obtain a degree in business administration. His goal, upon obtaining this degree, was to start his own business or work in his father's real estate business. Claimant applied for career and related training benefits under Labor Law § 599. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disapproved his application on the ground that the program in which claimant was enrolled did not lead to a specific occupation. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. Labor Law § 599 provides additional unemployment insurance benefits for career and related training with respect to a "program clearly leading to the qualifications or skills for a specific occupation" ( 12 NYCRR 482.2 [b]). Such benefits have been denied where a claimant's course of study has been in a general program not linked to a specific type of job ( see e.g. Matter of Schroder [Commissioner of Labor], 38 AD3d 1142; Matter of Alduen [Commissioner of Labor], 26 AD3d 579; Matter of Romain [Commissioner of Labor], 8 AD3d 869). Inasmuch as the business administration program in which claimant was enrolled was also general in nature and his career goal nonspecific, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that he was not eligible for additional benefits under Labor Law § 599.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In re Vasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 5, 2007
42 A.D.3d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

In re Vasquez

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of ELIDO F. VASQUEZ, JR., Appellant…

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

Date published: Jul 5, 2007

Citations

42 A.D.3d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 5810
839 N.Y.S.2d 312

Citing Cases

Mullane v. Comm'r of Labor

The record further reflects that claimant attended and completed a summer course offered by Cornell…

In re Gleason-Rose

Here, claimant originally sought training to acquire a position in the field of marketing, but subsequently…