Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0778-12T1
06-10-2014
LUBOMIR JANECEK, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND L.C. MECHANICAL, Respondent.
Lubomir Janecek, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Arupa Barua, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondent LC. Mechanical has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Fisher and O'Connor.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No. 354,627.
Lubomir Janecek, appellant pro se.
John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Arupa Barua, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Respondent LC. Mechanical has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Lubomir Janecek appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review that ordered him to refund the sum of $5,600 in unemployment benefits and pay a fine of $1,400, and determined he was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits for one year. We affirm.
Janecek was found eligible to receive unemployment benefits, effective September 21, 2008, in the amount of $560 per week. On January 15, 2009, he resumed employment, but continued receiving unemployment benefits until March 21, 2009. During the period he was employed and receiving benefits, he repeatedly represented to the Division of Unemployment and Disability Insurance (Division) that he was unemployed.
Following an investigation by the Division's Bureau of Benefit Payment Control, which exposed Janecek knowingly received benefits while employed, the Director of the Division ordered Janecek to refund $5,600 in benefits, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(d), for the ten weeks he received benefits when he was working. As the Division found Janecek had obtained benefits through false or fraudulent misrepresentations, the Division also found he was ineligible for benefits for one year, as of August 31, 2011, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(g)(1). The Division also assessed a fine of $1,400 under N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(a).
Janecek appealed the Director's determinations to the Appeal Tribunal which, following a hearing, affirmed the Director's determinations. During the hearing, Janecek did not deny he represented to the Division he was unemployed when he was in fact working. Janecek's explanation for his actions was that he did not understand how "unemployment work[ed]." Janecek appealed, but the Board of Review affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's decision.
On appeal Janecek contends he did not intentionally misrepresent he was employed while receiving benefits and, as he asserted during the hearing before the Appeal Tribunal, claimed he misunderstood the employment process. We conclude Janecek's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
The scope of our review in an appeal from a final decision of an administrative agency is limited. Circus Liquors, Inc. v. Governing Body of Middletown, 199 N.J. 1, 9 (2009). We must sustain the agency's action in the absence of a "'clear showing' that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable or that it lacks fair support in the record[.]" Ibid. We are satisfied the Board's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable and had adequate support in the record.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION