IN RE: the Claim of Gisela E. CAREY

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

IN RE: the Claim of Gisela E. CAREY, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Decided: February 25, 1999

Before:  MIKOLL, J.P., CREW III, YESAWICH JR., SPAIN and GRAFFEO, JJ. Carey & Associates (Michael Q. Carey of counsel), New York City, for appellant. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Steven S. Park of counsel), New York City, for respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 12, 1997, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim.

Claimant worked as an account manager for a bank for over 20 years until she was laid off on June 4, 1996.   The employer provided claimant with a severance package which included payment of one year of her regular gross salary with continued health insurance benefits.   Claimant could continue to receive these payments and to work for another employer, but not for a company that had the same clients as her former employer.   After the severance payments stopped, claimant filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits in June 1997.   Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because she lacked sufficient weeks of employment and earnings in her base period to file a valid original claim.1  While claimant maintains that she had “good cause” (12 NYCRR 473.1[h] ) for her failure to file a claim when she was first laid off because her employer allegedly did not provide her with the appropriate information regarding her eligibility, there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the Board's rejection of her argument (see, Matter of Katz [Hudacs], 191 A.D.2d 865, 865-866, 595 N.Y.S.2d 133;  Matter of Walker [Hartnett], 151 A.D.2d 897, 898, 543 N.Y.S.2d 193).   Claimant's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be unpersuasive.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

FOOTNOTES

1.   To be eligible for benefits, a claimant must establish, inter alia, that he or she has accrued a base period of at least 20 weeks of employment in the 52 weeks prior to filing a valid original claim (see, Labor Law § 527[1][d] ) or otherwise comply with the 15-week minimum employment period described in the alternate condition for a valid original claim (see, Labor Law § 527[2] ).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Copied to clipboard