Morganstern v. Comm'r of Labor

199 A.D.3d 1224

158 N.Y.S.3d 302

In the Matter of the Claim of Lucy MORGANSTERN, Appellant.

v.COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

533090

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: October 21, 2021

Decided and Entered: November 18, 2021

Lucy Morganstern, New York City, appellant pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Koton of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Aarons, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pritzker, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 13, 2020, which reduced claimant's 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 claimant's 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 claimant's earnings in her base period, claimant's weekly benefit rate was set at $504.

In July 2020, the Department of Labor issued a notice of determination reducing claimant's 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 claimant's 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] ).¹ "Under the plain language of the statute, the specified reduction shall be made where a claimant's base period employer made a pension fund contribution during the base period which increased the claimant's 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 claimant's pension benefit exceeded her weekly unemployment insurance benefit (see Labor Law § 600[1][b] ), the statutory reduction was triggered, and claimant's 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 Board's 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...