Matter of Mangiero (Commissioner of Labor)
2021 NY Slip Op 05062
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2021Background
- Claimant Kristin Mangiero filed an original unemployment insurance claim effective March 9, 2020.
- Claimant admitted she performed no paid work during her base period or alternate base period.
- Initial determinations and an ALJ denied regular UI benefits and Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) under the CARES Act for lack of a valid original claim and ineligibility for PUA.
- Claimant argued she was unable/unavailable to work because a health care provider advised her to self‑quarantine.
- The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed, relying on the statutory text and U.S. Department of Labor guidance requiring an attachment to the labor market/place of employment for PUA eligibility.
- The Appellate Division affirmed: substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings; deference to the federal agency interpretation was appropriate; claims of ALJ bias and late-submitted medical evidence were rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of original UI claim | Mangiero: eligible to file original claim | Commissioner: no covered earnings during base period, so no valid claim | Held: No valid original claim; substantial evidence supports denial (insufficient covered earnings) |
| Eligibility for PUA based on self‑quarantine | Mangiero: advised to self‑quarantine, thus unable to reach place of employment for COVID‑19 reason | Commissioner: PUA requires attachment to labor market/place of employment; claimant had no such attachment | Held: Denied—statute presupposes a place of employment; claimant not within PUA scope; Board’s reading consistent with DOL guidance and entitled to deference |
| Deference to federal guidance | Mangiero: statutory language favors her reading (implicitly) | Commissioner: DOL guidance explains PUA requires loss of wages/hours or inability to start employment after bona fide offer | Held: Court deferred to federal agency interpretation as permissible construction and affirmed Board |
| ALJ bias and new evidence | Mangiero: ALJ biased; submitted medical records on appeal | Commissioner: Record shows no bias; new evidence not in Board record and irrelevant | Held: Rejected claims of bias; refused to consider new medical evidence on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Ankhbara, 105 AD3d 1244 (2013) (insufficient covered earnings defeats original UI claim)
- Matter of Kelly, 145 AD3d 1306 (2016) (same principle on covered earnings and valid claim)
- Cricchio v. Pennisi, 90 NY2d 296 (1997) (state interpretation entitled to deference when federal agency concurs)
- Perry v. Dowling, 95 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 1996) (supports deference to agency interpretation)
- Matter of Timberlake, 153 AD3d 1457 (2017) (requirement to show factual support for alleged ALJ bias)
- Matter of Green, 80 AD3d 954 (2011) (appellate court will not consider evidence not before the Board)