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 Elido F. VASQUEZ Jr., Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
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.
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 A.D.3d 1142, 834 N.Y.S.2d 336 [2007]; Matter of Alduen [Commissioner of Labor], 26 A.D.3d 579, 809 N.Y.S.2d 603 [2006]; Matter of Romain [Commissioner of Labor], 8 A.D.3d 869, 778 N.Y.S.2d 320 [2004] ). 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.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: July 05, 2007
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)