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 David S. KRAMER, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 23, 2007, which, among other things, charged claimant with a recoverable overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits.
Claimant, who had been employed as an adjunct college professor, was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he was not totally unemployed and, further, was found to have made willful misrepresentations warranting the imposition of a recoverable overpayment and forfeiture of future benefits. Claimant now appeals, arguing only that he did not make any willful misrepresentations.
We affirm. The record reveals that, despite claimant's receipt of an unemployment insurance handbook informing him that his employment would be defined to include any days in which he performed any services, claimant failed to disclose several additional days on which he met with and provided extra help to students outside of his regularly scheduled class, services which were included in his pay. Claimant's exculpatory explanation that he did not believe that such meetings constituted work created a credibility issue for resolution by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (see Matter of Zegelbone [Commissioner of Labor], 19 A.D.3d 986, 986, 797 N.Y.S.2d 198 [2005] ). Based upon the foregoing, there is substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that claimant made willful misrepresentations (see Matter of Andronica [Commissioner of Labor], 43 A.D.3d 1222, 1223, 841 N.Y.S.2d 707 [2007] ).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
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: January 31, 2008
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)