IN RE: the Claim of Lucy MORGANSTERN (2021)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.2021-11-18No. 533090

Summary · law.co

Holding. The decision reducing the claimant's unemployment insurance benefit rate to zero was affirmed.

A professional violinist filed for unemployment insurance benefits after pandemic-related work restrictions prevented her from performing. Although her weekly benefit rate was initially set at $504 based on her earnings record, the Department of Labor reduced it to zero because she was receiving a pension that had been increased by employer contributions made during her base period of employment. Under the relevant statute, unemployment benefits must be reduced when a claimant receives a pension funded by base period employers and when work during that base period increased the pension's value.

The claimant appealed, arguing the statutory reduction was irrational and discriminatory and that her benefits should have been reduced only by the amount of her July 2020 pension increase rather than eliminated entirely. The court rejected these arguments, finding that the statute's language is plain and mandatory. Because the claimant's pension was fully funded by contributing employers, her work during the base period increased her pension's monetary value, and the prorated weekly pension amount exceeded her unemployment benefit, the statute's reduction mechanism was properly triggered.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Application of Labor Law § 600(1) pension offset to unemployment benefits
Whether pension increase triggered by base period employment triggers mandatory benefit reduction
Claimant's challenge to statutory reduction as irrational and discriminatory

Procedural posture

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirming an Administrative Law Judge's upholding of the Department of Labor's determination to reduce her unemployment benefits.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 13, 2020, which reduced claimants benefit rate pursuant to Labor Law § 600(1).

Claimant, a professional violinist, began collecting a pension in 2016, and the pension plan at issue was fully funded by the contributing employers. Because claimant continued to work for a contributing employer, she received annual increases in the amount of her pension benefit effective each July 1. As relevant here, the amount of claimants monthly pension increased from July 2019 to July 2020. During 2019 and early 2020, claimant was working for the American Ballet Theatre and the American Symphony Orchestra. Due to restrictions put in place due to the COVID–19 pandemic, claimant was not able to work and, accordingly, she filed an application for unemployment insurance benefits effective June 29, 2020. Based upon claimants earnings in her base period, claimants weekly benefit rate was set at $504.

In July 2020, the Department of Labor issued a notice of determination reducing claimants unemployment insurance benefit rate to zero, effective June 29, 2020, pursuant to Labor Law § 600(1). Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge upheld the determination. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed that decision, prompting this appeal by claimant.

We affirm. Consistent with the provisions of Labor Law § 600(1)(a), the benefit rate of a claimant who is receiving a governmental or other pension “shall be reduced ․ if such [pension] payment is made under a plan maintained or contributed to by [the] base period employer and ․ the claimants employment with, or remuneration from, such employer after the beginning of the base period ․ increased the amount of ․ such pension” (see Matter of Scheiner [Commissioner of Labor], 263 A.D.2d 658, 658, 692 N.Y.S.2d 835 [1999]; Matter of Brainin [Sweeney], 239 A.D.2d 639, 639, 657 N.Y.S.2d 122 [1997]).

“Under the plain language of the statute, the specified reduction shall be made where a claimants base period employer made a pension fund contribution during the base period which increased the claimants pension” (Matter of Hall [Hartnett], 162 A.D.2d 96, 98, 563 N.Y.S.2d 129 [1990] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

As noted previously, the record establishes that, during the relevant base period, claimant received a pension benefit that, in turn, was fully funded by the contributing employers. The record further makes clear – and claimant does not dispute – that the work performed by her during the base period and the corresponding contributions made by her employers increased the monetary value of her pension. Under these circumstances, and given that the prorated weekly amount of claimants pension benefit exceeded her weekly unemployment insurance benefit (see Labor Law § 600[1][b]), the statutory reduction was triggered, and claimants unemployment insurance benefit rate was properly reduced to zero (see Matter of Hughes [Commissioner of Labor], 270 A.D.2d 533, 533–534, 703 N.Y.S.2d 827 [2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 754, 711 N.Y.S.2d 833, 733 N.E.2d 1102 [2000]; Matter of Scheiner [Commissioner of Labor], 263 A.D.2d at 658, 692 N.Y.S.2d 835; Matter of Hammer [Commissioner of Labor], 263 A.D.2d 608, 608, 703 N.Y.S.2d 284 [1999]). As the Boards decision is supported by substantial evidence, it will not be disturbed (see Matter of Burger [Commissioner of Labor], 109 A.D.3d 1073, 1074, 972 N.Y.S.2d 349 [2013]; Matter of Sanchez [Commissioner of Labor], 56 A.D.3d 846, 847, 866 N.Y.S.2d 459 [2008]). To the extent that claimant argues that the statutory reduction is irrational and/or discriminatory and that her unemployment insurance benefit rate should have reduced by only the amount of the July 2020 increase in her pension benefit, similar claims previously have been considered and rejected by this Court (see Matter of De Voe [Hudacs], 193 A.D.2d 1042, 1042, 598 N.Y.S.2d 1003 [1993]; Matter of Hall [Hartnett], 162 A.D.2d at 99, 563 N.Y.S.2d 129; Matter of Liss [Ross], 80 A.D.2d 716, 716–717, 437 N.Y.S.2d 731 [1981]).

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

FOOTNOTES

. The statute was amended in 2013, and Labor Law § 600(7)(a) is now Labor Law § 600(1)(a) (see L 2013, ch 57, part 0, § 19).

Pritzker, J.

Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Aarons and Colangelo, JJ., concur.