In re the Claim of Dunford
Claimant, a legal secretary, left her job after four days, citing asthma aggravated by co-workers' cigarette smoke, a reason not initially mentioned in her resignation letter. She applied for unemployment benefits and was initially deemed eligible, receiving $1,476. The employer protested, leading to a local office review that reversed the decision, declaring her ineligible and demanding repayment. This decision was affirmed by an administrative law judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Claimant appealed, arguing that the Commissioner of Labor lacked authority to review the initial determination under Labor Law § 597 (3) due to a lack of "new or corrected information." The court affirmed the Board's decision, liberally construing "new or corrected information" to include an "amplification of prior information" and finding no substantial prejudice to the claimant.