Matter of Kunz [Commr. of Labor]

Decided and Entered: June 30, 2005
97411
______
In the Matter of the Claim of WILLIAM KUNZ, Appellant.
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.
_
Calendar Date: May 18, 2005
Before: Mercure, J.P., Spai.....

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Decided and Entered: June 30, 2005 97411 ________________________________ In the Matter of the Claim of WILLIAM KUNZ, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent. ___________________________ Calendar Date: May 18, 2005 Before: Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ. __________ William Kunz, Elmsford, appellant pro se. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Gary Leibowitz of counsel), for respondent. __________ Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 27, 2004, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision charging claimant with a recoverable overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits and reducing his right to receive future benefits. Claimant certified for unemployment insurance benefits for the week ending November 2, 2003, indicating that he did not work during that week, and received benefits in the amount of $405. Claimant, in fact, worked for an air conditioning company on October 27 and 28, 2003 and earned $600. He was subsequently found ineligible to receive benefits for the week in question because he was not totally unemployed. In addition, he was charged with a recoverable overpayment of benefits and his right to receive future benefits was reduced on the ground that he made a willful misrepresentation. Upon reconsideration, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board adhered to its decision containing these latter findings. Claimant now appeals. Claimant testified that his failure to report his work during the week ending November 2, 2003 was an innocent mistake. Claimant’s false statement provides substantial evidence supporting the Board’s finding that he made a willful misrepresentation (see Labor Law § 597 [4]; Matter of Raspallo [Commissioner of Labor], 10 AD3d 751, 752 [2004]; Matter of Spangler [Commissioner of Labor], 7 AD3d 848, 849 [2004]). Therefore, we find no reason to disturb its decision. Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Matter of Kunz [Commr. of Labor]

Decided and Entered: June 30, 2005 97411 ________________________________ In the Matter of the Claim of WILLIAM KUNZ, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent. ___________________________ Calendar Date: May 18, 2005 Before: Mercure, J.P., Spai.....

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal

Decided and Entered: June 30, 2005
97411
______
In the Matter of the Claim of WILLIAM KUNZ, Appellant.
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.
_
Calendar Date: May 18, 2005
Before: Mercure, J.P., Spai.....