In re the Claim of Schwartz
Opinion of the Court
We affirm. A professional employee of an educational institution is precluded from receiving unemployment insurance benefits during the time between two successive academic years where the claimant has received a reasonable assurance of continued employment (see Labor Law § 590 [10]; Matter of Jeanty [New York City Dept. of Educ. — Commissioner of Labor], 65 AD3d 1437, 1437-1438 [2009]). “A reasonable assurance . . . has been interpreted as a representation by the employer that substantially the same economic terms and conditions will continue to apply to the extent that the claimant will receive at least 90% of the earnings received during the first academic period” (Matter of Murphy [Copake-Taconic Cent. School Dist.— Commissioner of Labor], 17 AD3d 762, 763 [2005] [citations omitted]; accord Matter of Papapietro [Commissioner of Labor], 34 AD3d 956, 957 [2006]). Here, insofar as the employer’s letter, as well as the hearing testimony of the employer’s representative, established that the employer intended to employ claimant for as many days in the 2008-2009 school year as in the previous year at a higher rate of pay, we find that the Board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Jeanty [Commissioner of Labor], 65 AD3d at 1438; Matter of Papapietro [Commissioner of Labor], 34 AD3d at 957; Matter of Cortorreal [New York City Dept. of Educ. — Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1126, 1127 [2006]).
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Kane, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.