Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

John Reddington v. Board of Review and French & Parrello Associates

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


June 14, 2012

JOHN REDDINGTON, APPELLANT,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW AND FRENCH & PARRELLO ASSOCIATES, RESPONDENTS.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 295,514.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted February 1, 2012 -

Before Judges Fuentes and Koblitz.

John Reddington appeals from the decision of the Board of Review denying his application for extended emergency unemployment compensation benefits under supplemental funds provided by Congress to the individual states pursuant to the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act, 26 U.S.C.A. § 3304. We affirm.

Based on an application filed on May 2, 2010, Reddington was found eligible for regular unemployment compensation benefits after he established a base year from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, during which he earned wages amounting to $13,242.10. He received a total of $8,064, exhausting his maximum allotment of regular compensation benefits on August 7, 2010. He filed an application for extended emergency benefits the following day.

A deputy claims examiner denied Reddington's application for emergency extended benefits. The examiner found that Reddington did not establish twenty base weeks greater than $145*fn1 or earn forty times his weekly benefit rate of $576 or $23,040 during his base year. On Reddington's appeal, the Appeal Tribunal conducted a hearing and affirmed the decision of the claims examiner. In so doing, the Tribunal rejected Reddington's request that wages he earned after the 2009 base year be considered in determining his eligibility for extended benefits. The Board of Review adopted the findings and conclusions of the Appeal Tribunal. On appeal to this court, Reddington reiterates the request he made before the Appeal Tribunal.

Our standard of review of final decisions of State administrative agencies is well-settled. "Unless a Court finds that the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, the agency's ruling should not be disturbed." Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). Eligibility for emergency extended unemployment benefits is clearly set out in the legislation adopted by Congress:

[A]n individual shall not be eligible for emergency unemployment compensation under this title unless, in the base period with respect to which the individual exhausted all rights to regular compensation under the State law, the individual had 20 weeks of full-time insured employment or the equivalent in insured wages, as determined under the provisions of the State law implementing section 202(a)(5) of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 [U.S.C.A. § 3304] note) . . . . [26 U.S.C.A. § 3304 note.]

As correctly noted by the Attorney General in its brief on behalf of the Board, Reddington only established fourteen base weeks of full-time employment during his base year and earned less than forty times his weekly benefits, rendering him ineligible for extended benefits. We thus affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the Board, which are supported by the record and sustainable as a matter of law. R. 2:11- 3(e)(1)(D).

Affirmed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.