Mayors to speak at Albany Law School

Mayors to speak at Albany Law School

Hosted by Albany Law School’s Government Law Center, Albany Mayor Kathy Sheehan, Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren and Saratoga Springs Mayor Joanne Yepsen will discuss their journeys to elected leadership, their personal insights on the equitable participation of women in politics and government, and the unique responsibility of running a city government.

The program, which will be held on Wednesday, February 19, 2014, 4:00 p.m.-5:30 p.m. at the Albany Law School, 80 New Scotland Avenue, Albany in the Dean Alexander Moot Courtroom, is free and open to the public.

To attend the reception following the discussion, please call Ms. Amy Gunnells,518-445-2329, or e-mail her at gunn@albanylaw.edu. 
.

Unemployment insurance benefits claimant’s showing of “good cause” for failing to comply with registration requirements requires granting of her application for benefits

Unemployment insurance benefits claimant’s showing of “good cause” for failing to comply with registration requirements requires granting of her application for benefits

2014 NY Slip Op 00270, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that a teacher [Claimant] was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she failed to comply with registration requirements.

Claimant served as a part-time public school teacher. Believing that she would be rehired during the following school year in the same capacity or as a substitute teacher, she did not file a claim for unemployment insurance benefits during the intervening summer.

When Claimant was not rehired and was unable to work as a substitute, she filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits. Her claim was ultimately considered by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and denied on the ground that she failed to comply with the applicable registration requirements.

Acknowledging that “it is well settled that registering and certifying for benefits in accordance with the requirements of the Labor Law and applicable regulations is a prerequisite to eligibility, the Appellate Division noted that  … “the failure to comply with such requirements may be excused for good cause shown,” which is a factual issue for the Board to resolve.

Here, however, Claimant testified that she failed to register because her employer gave her a reasonable assurance that her employment would be continued during the 2012-1013 school year and, therefore, she did not think that she was eligible for benefits. Indeed, Claimant indicated that she previously had applied for benefits under similar circumstances and her claim was denied upon the basis that she had been given a reasonable assurance of continued employment.*

Claimant also testified that she did not file the claim at issue until it became clear that she would not be rehired as a regular part-time teacher and that she could not be retained as a substitute due to licensing problems. Notably, said the court, no evidence was introduced to contradict Claimant’s testimony.

The Appellate Division, noting that the unemployment insurance handbook instructed Claimant otherwise, said that such instruction was understandably confusing in light of Claimant's past experience.

Accordingly, the court ruled that “under the particular circumstances presented, we find that the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence given that [Claimant] demonstrated good cause for her failure to comply with the registration requirements.”

* A temporary teacher’s eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits upon termination of his or her temporary employment depends on whether or not he or she has been given “a reasonable assurance of continued employment” within the meaning of Section 590.10 of the Labor Law.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_00270.htm
.
. 

The four-month statute of limitations set out in Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules applies when challenging a pubic retirement system’s administrative decision

The four-month statute of limitations set out in Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules applies when challenging a pubic retirement system’s administrative decision
2013 NY Slip Op 08026, Appellate Division, First Department

The contingent beneficiary [Petitioner] of a member of the New York City Teachers’ Retirement System was advised that she would not receive benefits under the deceased member's qualified pension plan (QPP) because he died prior to his date of retirement and thus the deceased member’s designated in-service beneficiary was entitled to the benefits.

Petitioner then filed an Article 78 petition challenging the Retirement System’s decision, seeking a judgment that she was entitled to either a determination of her rights as contingent beneficiary under the decedent’s qualified pension plan (QPP) or an order   directing the System to pay her benefits as a contingent beneficiary of the deceased member’s QPP.

Supreme Court dismissed her petition as untimely, finding that Petitioner failed to file a proceeding to challenge that determination within the requisite four-month period. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

The Appellate Division noted that “The parties agree that the four month statute of limitations controls this action, which challenges an agency determination” and that Petitioner failed to file her action within that four-month period.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_08026.htm
.

A public official employed in a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position is ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits based on such service

A public official employed in a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position is ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits based on such service
2014 NY Slip Op 00721, Appellate Division, Third Department

§527(1) of the Labor Law sets out the qualifications that an Unemployment Insurace claimant must satisfy in order to file a valid original claim entitling him or her to receive unemployment insurance benefits. §527(1)(d) requires that the claimant must be "paid remuneration by employers liable for contributions . . . for employment during at least two calendar quarters of the base period.

In this appeal the issue was whether an individual [Claimant] appointed to a position of Deputy Commissioner by the Governor who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after her term of office ended was “paid remuneration by employers liable for contributions.”

Initially the Department of Labor denied the claim, finding that Claimant, as a Deputy Commissioner, [1] held a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position while employed by the State, and [2] such service could not be used as base period employment for purposes of establishing a valid original claim for unemployment insurance benefits.

Although this determination was overruled by an Administrative Law Judge, ultimately the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board sustained the initial determination and ruled that Claimant was not eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Appeal Board’s decision explaining that [1] Labor Law §527(1) sets out the qualifications that a claimant must meet in order to file a valid original claim entitling him or her to receive unemployment insurance benefits and [2] Labor Law §527[1][d] requires that the claimant must be "paid remuneration by employers liable for contributions . . . for employment during at least two calendar quarters of the base period."

The decision then points out that Labor Law §565(2)(e) provides that services rendered for a governmental entity by a person “in a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position" is not employment for the purposes of establishing eligibility for Unemployment Insurance benefits.

The issue to be resolved, said the Appellate Division, is whether the Labor Law §565(2)(e) exclusion applies with respect to Claimant employment during the applicable base period.

Finding that “… the performance standards applicable to [Claimant’s] position supported the Appeals Board’s determination that Claimant held a "major nontenured policymaking or advisory position," the Appellate Division ruled that there was a rational basis for the Board's finding that Claimant’s service during the period in question “could not be used as base period employment for purposes of establishing a valid original claim” and dismissed the appeal.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_00721.htm
.

An employer's rights under Workers' Compensation Law §11 are not extinguished merely because the injured employee is an undocumented alien

An employer's rights under Workers' Compensation Law §11 are not extinguished merely because the injured employee is an undocumented alien

New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Microtech Contr. Corp., 2014 NY Slip Op 00897, Court of Appeals

In Balbuena v IDR Realty, LLC, 6 NY3d 338 [2006], the Court of Appeals held that an injured employee's status as an undocumented alien does not preclude his or her recovery of lost wages in a personal injury action against a landowner under the state's Labor Law.

In deciding New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens [Hospital] v Microtech Contr. Corp., the Court of Appeals held that an employer's statutory rights under the Workers' Compensation Law are not extinguished merely because the injured employee is an undocumented alien.

Hospital sued Microtech for common-law and contractual contribution and indemnification to recover any damages it had incurred in the course of litigation in which Microtech’s injured employees alleged their injuries resulted from Hospital’s alleged violations of the Labor Law.  

Supreme Court had granted the employees summary judgment on liability on their causes of action grounded in Labor Law §§240 (1) and 241 (6). Hospital's attorney said that Hospital and the employees had entered into “a high-low agreement”* at the damages trial that followed and, after the verdict, the judgment was paid in keeping with this arrangement. The hospital then sued Microtech seeking indemnification for the damages it suffered.

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division’s decision, held that Microtech’s alleged violations of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (8 USC §1324a) claimed by the hospital did not abrogate Microtech’s protection from third-party claims available to it pursuant to §11.

In other words, the court ruled that, “under the facts and circumstances presented by this case,” an employees' immigration status does not affect his or her employer's rights under Workers' Compensation Law §11.

* A high/low agreement is “a settlement in which a defendant agrees to pay the plaintiff a minimum recovery amount in return for the plaintiff’s agreement to accept a maximum amount regardless of the outcome of the trial.” 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_00897.htm
.