Opinion
March 2, 2000
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 16, 1998, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.
Jeffrey Mintz, New York City, for appellant.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Dawn A. Foshee of counsel), New York City, for respondent.
Before: MERCURE, J.P., CREW III, PETERS, SPAIN and MUGGLIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
We reject claimant's attacks on the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because he was not totally unemployed during a period when he worked as a part-time tax preparer and charging him with recoverable overpayments totaling $4,875 based upon his willful misrepresentations. We conclude that the proceedings were conducted in a timely fashion and that the Board's determination is supported by substantial evidence, and accordingly affirm the Board's decision.
Initially, we note that the one-year Statute of Limitations of Labor Law § 597 Lab. (3) does not apply in a case, as this one, where review is based upon a claimant's willful misrepresentations (see, Matter of Farina [Ross], 83 A.D.2d 671, 672; Matter of Soto [Catherwood], 35 A.D.2d 395, 396). Further, neither the two-year period set forth in Labor Law § 594 Lab. nor the three-year limitations period under CPLR 214 (2) have any application to an action by the State to recover benefits improperly paid out due to fraud (see, Matter of Soto [Catherwood], supra, at 396). To the contrary, the six-year Statute of Limitations of CPLR 213 controls (see, People v. Duggan, 30 A.D.2d 736).
Next, in view of the uncontradicted evidence that claimant worked for H R Block Inc. from January 1993 to April 1993, that he periodically submitted coupons certifying that he had not performed any work during the relevant period (see, Matter of Le Pore [Sweeney], 248 A.D.2d 783, 784; Matter of Bogdan [Sweeney], 223 A.D.2d 902) and that he received training or educational materials articulating that such disclosures must be made (see, Matter of Pinto [Commissioner of Labor], 258 A.D.2d 804, 805; Matter of Silverstein [Sweeney], 236 A.D.2d 757, 758), we conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that claimant willfully made false statements to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Further, claimant's assertion that he failed to disclose the employment information based upon the erroneous advice of an employee of the Department of Labor merely created a credibility issue for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Pittman [Commissioner of Labor], 252 A.D.2d 723, 724; Matter of Silverstein [Sweeney], supra, at 758-759). Claimant's additional contentions have been considered and found to be unavailing.
Crew III, Peters, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.