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 SHARON R. SILVER, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Calendar Date: April 6, 2011
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 2, 2010, as resettled by a decision filed May 3, 2010, which, among other things, charged claimant with a recoverable overpayment of emergency unemployment compensation benefits.
Claimant successfully applied for unemployment insurance benefits and, while she disclosed that she received a pension from her former employer, the Department of Labor failed to take those payments into account in determining her benefit rate. When it eventually did so, claimant's benefits were reduced and she was assessed with a recoverable overpayment of $760.75 in federally funded emergency unemployment compensation (hereinafter EUC) benefits (see Pub L 110–252, tit IV, § 4001 et seq., 122 U.S. Stat 2323; Matter of Umpierre [Commissioner of Labor], 80 AD3d 1123, 1123 [2011] ). Claimant then applied for a waiver of repayment, which the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately denied, and she appeals.
We affirm. Claimant was overpaid EUC benefits through no fault of her own, but is nevertheless required to repay them unless “equity and good conscience” militate in favor of a waiver of repayment (Pub L 110–252, tit IV, § 4005[b], 122 U.S. Stat 2323). Factors relevant in making that assessment include whether “recovery of the overpayment [would] cause financial hardship to” claimant and, in that regard, the Board cited evidence that her monthly income exceeded her expenses by almost $1,000 (United States Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No 23–08, Attachment A, at A13). As substantial evidence thus supports the Board's determination that a waiver of repayment was not called for as a matter of equity or good conscience, it will not be disturbed.
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
ENTER:
Robert D. Mayberger
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 511117
Decided: May 19, 2011
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)