You are here: / / CLAIMANT, WHO WAS NOT EMPLOYED AT THE TIME COVID-PANDEMIC-RELATED UNEMPLOYMENT...

CLAIMANT, WHO WAS NOT EMPLOYED AT THE TIME COVID-PANDEMIC-RELATED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS BECAME AVAILABLE, WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THE COVID-PANDEMIC BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was not entitled to COVID-pandemic-related unemployment insurance benefits because she was not employed at the time the benefits became available:

Claimant was ineligible for regular unemployment insurance benefits given her failure to work during the relevant period and contended that she was unable and unavailable to work due to one of the qualifying factors for pandemic unemployment assistance, namely, that she was “unable to reach [her] place of employment because [she was] advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19” (15 USC § 9021 [a] [3] [A] [ii] [I] [ff]). … The statutory directive that an applicant be “unable to reach the place of employment” presupposes that he or she has a place of employment to reach, however, removing from its scope individuals such as claimant who were not working or scheduled to start working at the time they were directed to self-quarantine (15 USC § 9021 [a] [3] [A] [ii] [I] [ff]). The Board read the statutory language in that manner and in accord with guidance from the United States Department of Labor — the federal agency tasked with providing operating instructions for the joint federal-state pandemic unemployment insurance program (see 15 USC § 9032 [b]) and from which we take judicial notice — that an individual “must have an attachment to the labor market and must have experienced a loss of wages and hours or [be] unable to start employment following a bona fide job offer” in order to obtain pandemic unemployment assistance … . Thus, as “‘the federal agency expressly concurs in the state’s interpretation of the statute, and the interpretation is a permissible construction of the statute,’ the interpretation is entitled to deference,” and it follows that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant was not entitled to pandemic unemployment assistance … . Matter of Mangiero (Commissioner of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 05062, Third Dept 9-23-21

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE RESPONDENT-SEX-OFFENDER WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THE CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING, HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES WHO WERE VICTIMS OF HIS SEX OFFENSES (THIRD DEPT).
THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).
Defendant’s Statement Was Made In Response to the Functional Equivalent of a Question Designed to Elicit an Incriminatory Response and Should Have Been Suppressed
CPLR 205 (A), WHICH ALLOWS AN ACTION TO BE REFILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DISMISSAL, DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTIONS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER WHICH STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL THE ORDER (THIRD DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Allegations of a Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation Were Not Sufficient As a Matter of Law
County Court’s Suppression of Statements and Fruits of Search Reversed
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT IN AN AREA IN WHICH FALLING OBJECTS COULD BE ANTICIPATED, SO THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD INTENTIONALLY THROWN INTO THE EXCAVATED AREA WHERE HE WAS WORKING; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED (THIRD DEPT).
SPECULATIVE MEDICAL OPINION DID NOT SUPPORT FINDING CLAIMANT’S PRIOR EMPLOYER LIABLE FOR ASBESTOS-RELATED MESOTHELIOMA, DESPITE EVIDENCE OF EXPOSURE AT THE PRIOR EMPLOYER (THIRD DEPT).

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

THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED UPON INFORMATION IN BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH... THE SENTENCE AGREED TO IN THE PLEA BARGAIN AND IMPOSED BY THE COURT WAS ILLEGAL...