IN RE: the Claim of Terri A. JABLONSKI

Reset A A Font size: Print

IN RE: the Claim of Terri A. JABLONSKI, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Decided: March 19, 2015

Before: McCARTHY, J.P., GARRY, EGAN Jr. and CLARK, JJ. Terri A. Jablonski, Pearl River, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Gary Leibowitz of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 9, 2014, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was unable to file a valid original claim.

Claimant earned $4,393.75 in the second quarter of 2012, but did not have any earnings in the third or fourth quarters of 2012 or in the first or second quarters of 2013. She filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits effective August 5, 2013. The Department of Labor issued initial determinations denying her benefits on the ground that she did not have earnings in two or more calendar quarters in the applicable base periods as was necessary to file a valid original claim. These determinations were sustained by an Administrative Law Judge following a hearing and later upheld by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. Labor Law § 527(1) and (2) set forth the requirements for filing a valid original claim for benefits under either the basic condition or the alternate condition. Both provisions require a claimant to receive a specified amount of remuneration from employment during at least two calendar quarters within the applicable base period (see Labor Law § 527[1], [2] ). For the basic condition, the base period covers the first four of the last five calendar quarters immediately preceding the filing of the claim (see Labor Law § 520[1] ). For the alternate condition, the base period covers the last four calendar quarters immediately preceding the filing of the claim (see Labor Law § 520[2] ).

Here, claimant's base period under the basic condition covered the second, third and fourth quarters of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013 (April 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013). However, given that she only had earnings during the second quarter of 2012, she failed to meet the requirement that she have earnings during two calendar quarters within the base period (see Matter of Stennett [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d 478, 479 [2008]; Matter of Rodriguez [New York City Dept.of Educ.-Commissioner of Labor], 24 AD3d 934, 934 [2005]; see also Labor Law § 527[1] ). As for the alternate condition, claimant's base period covered the third and fourth quarters of 2012 and the first and second quarters of 2013 (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013). However, she did not receive any remuneration from employment during any of the quarters within this base period (see Matter of Kokolakis [Commissioner of Labor], 97 AD3d 880, 881 [2012]; Matter of Stennett [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d at 479; Matter of Iusuf [Commissioner of Labor], 305 A.D.2d 792, 793 [2003], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 514 [2003]; see also Labor Law § 527 [2] ).1 Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant failed to meet the requirements necessary to file a valid original claim under either the basic condition or the alternate condition. We have considered claimant's other arguments and find them either unpreserved for our review or lacking in merit.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

FOOTNOTES

1.  It is irrelevant that claimant earned remuneration during the first quarter of 2012, as that quarter is outside both base periods.

McCARTHY, J.P., GARRY, EGAN JR. and CLARK, JJ., concur.

Copied to clipboard