Opinion
May 21, 1998
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Claimant, a veteran, was discharged from his permanent, noncompetitive position as Director of Fiscal Management and Investments for the State Insurance Fund (hereinafter the employer) in April 1995. He subsequently applied for unemployment insurance benefits and, following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) ruled that he was eligible and awarded benefits. The employer appealed to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which determined that claimant was ineligible for benefits on the ground that he was employed in a nontenured policymaking position within the meaning of Labor Law § 565 Lab. (2) (e). The Board further rejected claimants argument that he was entitled to the tenured status conferred upon certain veterans by Civil Service Law § 75 Civ. Serv. (1)(b), interpreting the statutory exception for "cashier[s]" to encompass claimants position. Claimant appeals.
Initially, we reject claimants argument that the employers appeal from the ALJ's determination was untimely inasmuch as the employer filed its notice of appeal with the Board within 20 days after the determination was mailed (see, 12 NYCRR 463.1 [c]). As to claimants next contention that the Board erred in finding that he was employed in a policymaking position, such a determination involves a mixed question of law and fact which must be upheld if supported by a rational basis ( see, Matter of Franconeri [New York City Dept. of Personnel — Hudacs], 190 A.D.2d 970, 971). The record reveals that claimant supervised the daily activities of approximately 200 employees within the four divisions of his department. The director of the administration department testified at the hearing that claimant formulated policy and advised the deputy executive director regarding fiscal management and investments. Moreover, in connection with his primary role of managing the employers $5 billion portfolio, claimant was given sole discretion to determine the nature and scope of investments. Although the employers commissioners and the Superintendent of Insurance were required to ratify claimant's investment choices at monthly meetings, all but one of the investments were approved. Based upon this evidence, we conclude that the Board rationally determined that claimant performed a policymaking function within the meaning of Labor Law § 565 Lab. (2)(e) ( see, Matter of Le Porte [New York City Dept. of Personnel — Hartnett], 142 A.D.2d 866, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 705).
Addressing claimants final argument that the Board erred in interpreting the term "cashier", we note that we must sustain a statutory interpretation that is rational and reasonable ( see, Matter of Goldman [Sweeney], 233 A.D.2d 664; Matter of Young [Rome Cable Corp. — Hudacs], 196 A.D.2d 937). Under the relevant statutory provision, certain veterans holding permanent government appointments enjoy tenured status and may only be discharged for incompetency or misconduct, except where the veteran holds the position of "private secretary, cashier or deputy of any official or department" (Civil Service Law § 75 Civ. Serv. [1][b]). Here, the Board rationally interpreted the term "cashier" to mean "official[s] in charge of distributing and receiving money" inasmuch as that definition is consistent with prior interpretations ( see, Matter of Rohr v. Kenngott, 288 N.Y. 97, 101) and, given that claimant was solely responsible for "the employers investments, bookkeeping, collections and other financial matters, the record supports the Boards determination that claimant was a cashier for purposes of denying unemployment insurance benefits.
Mikoll, J.P., Mercure, White and Spain, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.