From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Claim of Brady

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 4, 2004
5 A.D.3d 838 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

94512.

Decided and Entered: March 4, 2004.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 13, 2002, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she failed to comply with registration requirements.

Barbara A. Brady, Kew Gardens, appellant pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Dawn A. Foshee of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Rose, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Claimant was laid off from a managerial position on January 4, 2002 and, pursuant to an agreement with the employer, received severance pay until April 5, 2002. Claimant's original claim for unemployment insurance benefits was not effective until March 25, 2002 because she allegedly received wrong advice from the local unemployment insurance office that she could not file for benefits until her severance pay had ended. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits from January 4, 2002 through March 24, 2002 based upon her failure to comply with registration requirements. We affirm.

Whether a claimant has demonstrated good cause for failure to comply with the registration requirements is a factual question for the Board to resolve (see 12 NYCRR 473.1 [g]; Matter of Stabile [Commissioner of Labor], 250 A.D.2d 906, 906). Here, testimony established that in accordance with standard office procedure, information clerks at the local unemployment insurance office did not provide the type of advice which claimant alleged she received but, rather, referred such questions to the Telephone Claims Center. Furthermore, upon a tour of the local office, claimant was unable to identify the employee who she claimed furnished the erroneous advice. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision (see Matter of Stabile [Commissioner of Labor],supra at 906; Matter of Terranova [Hudacs], 211 A.D.2d 847, 848).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Claim of Brady

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 4, 2004
5 A.D.3d 838 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Claim of Brady

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF BARBARA A. BRADY, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF…

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

Date published: Mar 4, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 838 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
772 N.Y.S.2d 617

Citing Cases

In the Matter of the Claim of Newman

ubstantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was…

In the Matter of Claim of Breton

Upon review, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed, and claimant now appeals. Whether claimant's…