Labor & Employment Law

Evaluating conflicting testimony

Evaluating conflicting testimony
Cass v Commissioner of Labor, App. Div., 3rd Dept., 296 A.D.2d 759

It is not uncommon for an administrative body to receive conflicting testimony during a hearing. Such was the situation in the Cass case.

Donald M. Cass applied for and was granted unemployment insurance benefits. While he was collecting unemployment insurance benefits, however, Cass was also serving as a member of the Geneva City Council and received a salary of $208.33 per month. On January 1, 2000, while continuing to receive unemployment insurance benefits, Cass was sworn in as the Mayor of the City of Geneva, a part-time position for which he was paid $625 per month.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board [Board] ruled that Cass was ineligible for benefits because he was not totally unemployed during the time he was receiving unem­ployment benefits and, in addition, it concluded that he had made willful false statements in order to receive these benefits.

According to the Appellate Division's decision, Cass testified that he had mentioned his status as an elected official when he first applied for benefits and was told, by a clerk at the local unemployment insurance office, not to "worry about it". Thus, he contended, he did not reveal that he had received these payments when he made his weekly certifica­tions for benefits.

In contrast to Cass' testimony, the record before the Board included testimony from the clerk who took Cass' application that if claimant had mentioned his status as an elected official, she would have made a note of it on his application for benefits, and she had not done so.

In addition, the record included testimony from another Labor Department representative indicating that she had spoken to Cass concerning his benefits and had specifically in­structed him that he was required to report any activities performed by him as an elected official during the benefit period.

The Appellate Division sustained the Board's determination. It concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's finding that Cass was ineligible for benefits because he was not totally unemployed at the time and its further finding that he willfully made false statements in order to obtain benefits.

In the event there is conflicting testimony presented at the administrative hearing, the administrative body, not the court, must resolve any such conflict. In other words, the hearing officer or the administrative body is responsible for making determinations concerning the credibility of the witnesses.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on June 13, 2008 (boomark / email).