From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Halperin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 14, 1984
102 A.D.2d 933 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

June 14, 1984


Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 23, 1983, which ruled that claimants were entitled to receive benefits. ¶ Over the employer's objection, the board determined that claimants, noninstructional employees, were eligible for benefits during their 1982 summer recess. In so ruling, the board rejected the employer's contention that claimants were disqualified from receiving benefits during the period of the summer recess by operation of subdivision 11 of section 590 Lab. of the Labor Law. Specifically, the board found without merit the employer's contention that subdivision 11 of section 590, as interpreted by the Court of Appeals, provides that noninstructional school employees are ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits for the summer recess if they have a reasonable assurance of continuing employment in the next school year. Rather, the board took the position that subdivision 11 requires something more certain than the "reasonable assurance" showing mandated by subdivision 10 of section 590 Lab. of the Labor Law. A reading of Matter of La Mountain ( Westport Cent. School Dist. — Ross) ( 51 N.Y.2d 318), however, instructs us that the requirements of subdivisions 10 and 11, although couched in different words, are one and the same ( id., at pp 331-332, 335-336; cf. Matter of McCann [ Ross], 74 A.D.2d 697, affd 53 N.Y.2d 924). Indeed, the board's position on this appeal mirrors that taken by the dissent in Matter of La Mountain. Since the board applied an erroneous standard in rendering its determination, the decision must be reversed and the matter remitted to the board for a redetermination based upon the test mandated by the Court of Appeals in Matter of La Mountain. ¶ Decision reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Mahoney, P.J., Kane, Main, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

As noted in the dissenting opinion by Chief Judge Cooke, "[w]hat the majority in effect does is read the more liberal disqualification standards for professional employees, contained in subdivision 10 (of section 590), into subdivision 11". ( Matter of La Mountain [ Westport Cent. School Dist. — Ross], 51 N.Y.2d 318, 335, supra).


Summaries of

Matter of Halperin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 14, 1984
102 A.D.2d 933 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Matter of Halperin

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claims of ETHEL W. HALPERIN et al., Respondents. NEW…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 14, 1984

Citations

102 A.D.2d 933 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Matter of Sifakis

She nonetheless filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits, effective June 26, 1986. About July 18,…

Matter of Halperin

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board rejected the employer's argument, stating that Labor Law § 590 (11)…