In re the Claim of Enrique
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Magassouba (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- In re the Claim of Bruyne (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Claim of Bruyne (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Ruiz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006)
- Matter of Anazonwu (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- In re the Claim of Cale (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Claimant, a Cuban citizen, worked” 11 months for a photo printing company when his employment ended. He filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits on July 21, 2003. According to documentation offered in evidence at a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, claimant was not authorized by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (hereinafter the INS) to work in the United States during the time he worked for the photo printing company or thereafter. Consequently, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that he was ineligible for benefits because he was not available for work and also found that he was unable to file a valid original claim because his base period employment as an alien was not covered employment under Labor Law § 590 (9). Claimant now appeals.
We affirm. “It is well settled that ‘an alien without current, valid authorization to work from the INS is not legally available for work and not eligible for benefits’ ” (Matter of Okumakpeyi [Commissioner of Labor], 295 AD2d 828, 829 [2002], quoting Matter of Diamond [Hudacs], 210 AD2d 835, 836 [1994]; see Matter of Gibei [Commissioner of Labor], 284 AD2d 784, 785 [2001]). Inasmuch as the record confirms the absence of documentation establishing that the INS authorized claimant to work in the United States during the time period in question, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that he was not available for work or that he was unable to file a valid original, claim.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.