In re the Claim of Schroder
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Mullane (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- In re the Claim of McFowler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- In re the Claim of Schumer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Matter of Simpson (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- In re the Claim of Gleason-Rose (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- In re Moore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- In re the Claim of Rivera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- In re the Claim of Vasquez (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
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 14, 2006, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive additional unemployment insurance benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 599.
While receiving regular unemployment insurance benefits, claimant applied for career training benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 599 for the purpose of attending community college in an individual studies program and earning an Associate’s degree. In a subsequent application, claimant requested additional benefits, indicating that she had changed her major to office technology and intended to earn an Associate’s degree in Applied Science and become an administrative assistant. After various proceedings, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied her applications. Claimant appeals.
We affirm. In order to be eligible for additional training benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 599, a claimant must attend an approved training course or program “clearly leading to the
In any event, a claimant will not receive benefits under Labor Law § 599 unless he or she has been accepted in or has applied for an approved training program while still receiving regular unemployment benefits (see Matter of Yard [Commissioner of Labor], 20 AD3d 644, 645 [2005]; Matter of Haydenn [Commissioner of Labor], 278 AD2d 652, 653 [2000]). In this case, claimant’s application based on her new major of office technology was submitted after her regular unemployment insurance benefits were exhausted, rendering her ineligible for the additional benefits. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the decision of the Board is supported by substantial evidence.
Mercure, J.E, Peters, Rose, 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.