Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

In re the Claim of Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 23, 2011

85 A.D.3d 1478; 925 N.Y.S.2d 729

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Vazquez (Commr. of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Enman (New York City Dept. of Educ.--Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Cieszkowska (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Papapietro (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Rosenbaum (Commr. of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
In re the Claim of Cardin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re the Claim of Cardin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re the Claim of Ganster (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re the Claim of Ganster (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)

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 October 1, 2010, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she had a reasonable assurance of continued employment.

*1479Claimant was employed as a per diem substitute teacher in Manhattan and the Bronx by the New York City Department of Education during the 2008-2009 school year for a total of 154 days. On June 12, 2009, claimant was sent a letter by the employer assuring her of continued employment during the upcoming 2009-2010 school year, with the amount of work available and the economic terms and conditions of employment to be substantially the same as in the previous year. Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits for the summer of 2009 and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately determined that she was ineligible to receive them as she had received a reasonable assurance of continued employment pursuant to Labor Law § 590 (10). Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. A professional employed by an educational institution is precluded from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for the period between two successive academic years when he or she has received a reasonable assurance of continued employment (see Labor Law § 590 [10]; Matter of Sultana [New York City Dept. of Educ. — Commissioner of Labor], 79 AD3d 1552, 1553 [2010]; Matter of Schwartz [New York City Dept. of Educ. — Commissioner of Labor], 68 AD3d 1323, 1324 [2009]). Here, a representative from the employer testified that claimant would have as many opportunities to work during the 2009-2010 school year as she had the prior year because there were expected to be the same number of teachers and students, there were no budgetary or other impediments to hiring claimant and the list of potential substitute teachers had been reduced from 12,000 to 9,000. That testimony, along with the letter sent to claimant and her professed belief that she would be offered the same amount of work, provide substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination (see Matter of Schwartz [New York City Dept. of Educ. — Commissioner of Labor], 68 AD3d at 1324; Matter of Jeanty [New York City Dept. of Educ. — Commissioner of Labor], 65 AD3d 1437, 1438 [2009]).

Peters, J.P., Rose, Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.