From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Hammer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 1, 1999
263 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

July 1, 1999

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 5, 1998, which, inter alia, reduced claimant's weekly unemployment insurance benefit rate to zero.

Ben Hammer, Merrick, appellant in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Steven Segall of counsel), New York City, for respondent.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, YESAWICH JR., PETERS and CARPINELLO, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reducing claimant's benefit rate to zero. The record establishes that claimant's pension was totally funded by his employer and that the amount of his pension payments exceeded the maximum weekly unemployment benefit rate of $300 (see, Labor Law § 590). Accordingly, claimant's unemployment insurance benefits were properly reduced by the amount of his pension benefits (see, Labor Law § 600; Matter of De Salvo [Commissioner of Labor], 249 A.D.2d 619; Matter of Levin [Sweeney], 244 A.D.2d 642). Although claimant points out that he disclosed his receipt of pension benefits on his unemployment insurance application, he was nevertheless properly charged with a recoverable overpayment of benefits (see, Matter of Pinezic [Sweeney], 223 A.D.2d 898).

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Hammer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 1, 1999
263 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Hammer

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of BEN HAMMER, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF…

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

Date published: Jul 1, 1999

Citations

263 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
703 N.Y.S.2d 284

Citing Cases

Morganstern v. Comm'r of Labor

The record further makes clear – and claimant does not dispute – that the work performed by her during the…

Johnson v. Comm'r of Labor

Accordingly, claimant's sole argument upon appeal is that because she purportedly was advised by a Department…