You are here: / / ALTHOUGH CLAIMANTS WERE TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES HIRED BECAUSE OF HURRICANE...

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANTS WERE TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES HIRED BECAUSE OF HURRICANE DAMAGE, THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COVERAGE DID NOT APPLY, CLAIMANTS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS.

The Third Department determined claimants were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Claimants were hired on a temporary basis to address damage caused by a hurricane.  The employer argued claimants were hired to address an emergency and therefore were not entitled to coverage. In rejecting the emergency exception, the court noted claimants were hired a year after the hurricane and performed routine maintenance:

For purposes of determining a claimant’s eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits, Labor Law § 565 (2) (d) provides that “the term ’employment’ does not include services rendered for a governmental entity by . . . a person serving on a temporary basis in case of fire, storm, snow, earthquake, flood or similar emergency” … . “Whether this exclusion applies presents a mixed question of law and fact, and the Board’s determination in this regard will be upheld if it has a rational basis” … . * * *

The record evidence reflects that claimants, who were hired on a temporary basis using federal grant money received as a result of the damage caused by the hurricane, performed routine maintenance duties, including cutting grass, raking leaves, shoveling snow, driving trucks and cleaning municipal parking lots. In determining that the services performed by claimants were related to the hurricane clean-up efforts but “not performed in case of an emergency,” the Board noted that claimants were hired almost a year after the hurricane and at a time when “there was no need for immediate action.” The Board also relied upon a Program Letter issued by the United States Department of Labor (hereinafter DOL) that provided the DOL’s interpretation of the exclusion from unemployment insurance coverage of governmental services performed in case of emergency … . That Program Letter provides that “the urgent distress caused by the emergency . . . must directly cause the need for the services to be performed” and that, if the services performed occur “after the need for immediate action has passed, they are not necessarily performed in case of emergency”… . Given the Board’s reliance upon the DOL’s Program Letter, as well as the non-exigent, routine nature of the services provided by claimants, who were hired by the employer nearly a year after the hurricane, there is a rational basis for the Board’s decision that the exclusion did not apply and that the services performed by claimants “were in covered employment.” … . Matter of Clemons (Village of Freeport–Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 04333, 3rd Dept 6-1-17

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (ALTHOUGH CLAIMANTS WERE TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES HIRED BECAUSE OF HURRICANE DAMAGE, THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COVERAGE DID NOT APPLY, CLAIMANTS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS)/EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COVERAGE (ALTHOUGH CLAIMANTS WERE TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES HIRED BECAUSE OF HURRICANE DAMAGE, THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COVERAGE DID NOT APPLY, CLAIMANTS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS)/LABOR LAW (EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COVERAGE, ALTHOUGH CLAIMANTS WERE TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES HIRED BECAUSE OF HURRICANE DAMAGE, THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COVERAGE DID NOT APPLY, CLAIMANTS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS)

You might also like
Family Court Properly Issued an Order of Protection Against the 13-Year-Old Respondent In Favor of Petitioner’s 13-Year-Old Daughter Pursuant to Family Court Act 812—Respondent and Daughter Had Been Boyfriend-Girlfriend and Had Been Intimate But They Were Not Members of the Same Family or Household and Never Lived Together—Respondent Fit Within the Expanded Definition of “Member of the Same Family or Household” As the Phrase Is Used In Family Court Act 812, Thereby Providing Family Court with Jurisdiction Over the Proceedings
COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEFENDANT TO PAY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ALCOHOL-MONITORING BRACELET.
Odor of Burnt Marijuana Provided Probable Cause to Search Defendant and Vehicle
DRIVING WITH HIGH BEAMS ON JUSTIFIED THE VEHICLE STOP WHICH LED TO A DWI ARREST (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PETITIONER SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE STEPPING OFF A BUS SHE WAS CLEANING, THE INCIDENT QUALIFIED AS AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW ENTITLING PETITIONER TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, CLEANING BUSES WAS NOT PETITIONER’S NORMAL FUNCTION AND SHE HAD NEVER BEEN IN THE PARKING AREA WHERE SHE SLIPPED AND FELL (THIRD DEPT).
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) PERSONNEL WERE NOT ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE POLICE WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRISON KILLING WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN ABOUT AND TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE ANY ALLEGED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TURNED UP IN THE DOCS INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT).
MEMBER OF LLC WHICH OWNED A MOBILE HOME PARK IS PERSONALLY LIABLE, PURSUANT TO THE RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICER DOCTRINE, FOR AN $800,000 PENALTY IMPOSED FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REQUIRING SEWAGE-TREATMENT MEASURES (THIRD DEPT).
MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, EXPLAINING MOTHER’S ABSENCE, MOTHER, CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND COULD APPEAL THE ORDER.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

AMENDMENT OF NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ALLEGE A DIFFERENT THEORY (CREATION OF THE DEFECT)... EXOTIC DANCER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.