From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Up State Federal Credit Union

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 8, 1998
246 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

January 8, 1998

Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.


Sometime prior to 1993, the National Credit Union Administration (hereinafter NCUA) initiated insolvency proceedings against the RDC Federal Credit Union (hereinafter RDC) that eventually resulted in the purchase from NCUA by Up State Federal Credit Union (hereinafter Up State) of some of the loans RDC had made and the acceptance, with some exceptions, of RDC's accounts. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Labor determined that a transfer had occurred pursuant to Labor Law § 581 (4), and accordingly assigned RDC's account to Up State which increased Up State's rate of contribution. This appeal follows Up State's unsuccessful pursuit of administrative relief.

Initially, we reject Up State's contention that there was no "transferring employer" as required by Labor Law § 581. A "transferring employer" includes the "successor" of any firm, public or private association, or domestic corporation which obtained the property of its predecessor by operation of law ( see, Labor Law § 512; see also, Matter of Turano [Wightman-Miller], 260 App. Div. 971, affd 286 N.Y. 574). NCUA plainly fits within this definition since all of RDC's assets passed to it pursuant to statute ( 12 U.S.C. § 1787 [b] [2] [A]). Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the Board's finding that NCUA was a transferring "employer" under Labor Law § 581 (4).

We also find that substantial evidence supports the Board's ruling that there was a transfer of business. Under Labor Law § 581 (4), a transfer is deemed to have occurred unless it is found that the transferee has neither assumed any obligations of the transferring employer, acquired its good will, continued or resumed the business of the transferring employer, nor employed substantially the same employees ( see, Matter of Employee Relations Assocs. [Hartnett], 142 A.D.2d 813). Here, the record reveals that Up State resumed RDC's business from the same premises RDC occupied and hired the three employees of RDC who previously worked at this location. Under these circumstances, the Board's decision must be affirmed. Up State's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be either unpreserved for our review or unpersuasive.

Mikoll, J.P., White, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In re Up State Federal Credit Union

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 8, 1998
246 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

In re Up State Federal Credit Union

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of UP STATE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Appellant. JOHN E…

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

Date published: Jan 8, 1998

Citations

246 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
667 N.Y.S.2d 481

Citing Cases

Prod. Processing Inc. v. Comm'r Labor

He also testified that a number of clients of Producers Payroll and FPS Payroll became clients of the new…

In re Prod. Processing Inc.

In light of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that a transfer of…