Nebel v. Comm'r Labor

• Decision Date: 25 July 2013
• Citation: 108 A.D.3d 1007,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 05498,970 N.Y.S.2d 128
• Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Irene T. NEBEL, Appellant. v. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

108 A.D.3d 1007
970 N.Y.S.2d 128
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 05498

In the Matter of the Claim of Irene T. NEBEL, Appellant.
v.
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

July 25, 2013.

Irene T. Nebel, Manhasset, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Gary Leibowitz of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ROSE, J.P., LAHTINEN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.

[108 A.D.3d 1007]Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 15, 2012, which, among other things, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

After she lost her full-time position at a college, claimant, who has a graduate degree in counseling, worked part time at the circulation desk of a library from January 2007 through September 2008. During

[970 N.Y.S.2d 129]

this period, claimant usually worked approximately 34.5 hours every two weeks, with the number of days and hours per week varying. According to claimant, it was her personal belief that “a day of work” could only mean eight hours of work and, thus, regardless of how many days she worked at the library per week, claimant testified that she would add up her total number of hours, divide that number by eight [108 A.D.3d 1008]and fill in the resulting number as her days of work during that week when certifying for unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant testified that she did not receive an unemployment insurance handbook and did not access the online version of the handbook, although she did state that she read the online “frequently asked questions” section. By separate initial determinations, effective January 29, 2007 through December 30, 2007 and January 28, 2008 through September 28, 2008, claimant was, among other things, held to be ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately ruled that claimant was not totally unemployed during those periods, and further charged her with a recoverable overpayment and loss of future benefits due to her willful misrepresentations regarding her work schedule. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. There is substantial evidence in the record supporting the Board's ruling that claimant lacked total unemployment and was ineligible to receive benefits for the applicable periods ( see Matter of Ramdhani [Commissioner of Labor], 98 A.D.3d 1183, 1184, 950 N.Y.S.2d 832 [2012];Matter of...