Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the Claim of Morris D. KAPLAN, Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 4, 1994, which reduced claimant's weekly unemployment insurance benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 600(7).
The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant's unemployment insurance benefits were properly reduced from $300 per week to zero after claimant's previous employer paid claimant his profit-sharing pension benefits in a lump sum, which claimant reinvested in an individual retirement account (IRA) (see, Labor Law § 600[7] ). Claimant challenges the Board's decision, contending that the roll-over of his pension benefit funds into an IRA did not constitute the receipt of his pension within the meaning of Labor Law § 600(7). We disagree.
Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant's profit-sharing pension was fully funded by claimant's employer, thereby warranting the full reduction of claimant's unemployment benefits (see, Matter of Chriscaden [Sweeney], 232 A.D.2d 803, 649 N.Y.S.2d 345). Additionally, Labor Law § 600(7) provides for the reduction of unemployment insurance benefits, including those from a profit-sharing plan, where an employee receives retirement benefits, regardless of whether he or she chooses to have the retirement payments distributed in monthly installments or in a lump-sum payment that is then reinvested in an IRA (see, Matter of Rolland [Eastman Kodak Co.-Sweeney], 232 A.D.2d 710, 648 N.Y.S.2d 184; Matter of Skinder [Sweeney], 226 A.D.2d 796, 640 N.Y.S.2d 302). Accordingly, we conclude that the Board's decision should not be disturbed.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 27, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)