JOSEPH MAYURNIK v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3558-05T23558-05T2

JOSEPH MAYURNIK,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR,

Respondent-Respondent.

__________________________________

 

Submitted September 25, 2006 - Decided October 13, 2006

Before Judges Lintner and C.L. Miniman.

On appeal from a Final Decision of the Board of Review, Docket No. 91,978.

Joseph Mayurnik, appellant pro se.

Anne Milgram, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa N. Lackay, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Claimant Joseph Mayurnik appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review denying his claim for unemployment benefits, ordering restitution of benefits paid, and imposing a penalty for making a false statement in his application for benefits. Because there is substantial, credible evidence in the record to support the Board's findings of fact, and because the Board's conclusions are not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, we affirm.

Claimant was employed full time by George Weston Bakeries, Inc. (Entenmann's), for approximately twenty-two years. During the same period, claimant also held a part-time position with Dowling Associates. On October 22, 2004, claimant's position with Entenmann's was eliminated. However, he maintained his part-time employment with Dowling Associates and continued to receive his weekly salary of $170.

On October 26, 2004, claimant applied for unemployment benefits online and was initially found eligible. Pursuant to an October 28, 2004, determination, benefits were paid for an extended period of time. In applying for benefits over the internet, claimant stated that he was working part-time for Dowling Associates in response to question #24 in part two of the form. In response to the first question in part three, question #39, he indicated that he had been employed during the last eighteen months by Entenmann's. He stated that he began working for this employer on September 7, 1982, and that his last day of work was October 22, 2004. He responded "no" to each of the next three questions, all of which asked if he had worked for more than one employer in the last eighteen months.

While he was receiving unemployment benefits, claimant continued to receive his part-time salary from Dowling Associates, yet he did not disclose this ongoing employment on the weekly certification that accompanied his unemployment benefits checks. It was not until the summer of 2005 that Dowling Associates protested the assessment against it for benefits paid to claimant. On August 12, 2005, Robin Tams, Investigator I, Division of Unemployment Compensation, contacted Dowling Associates, and spoke with Ray Swiderski, who advised her that claimant had no change in his hours of work, that he always worked part-time, and that he received the same weekly pay every week. On August 18, 2005, Swiderski faxed claimant's payroll records to Tams. Tams conducted an interview of claimant on September 30, 2005, and he confirmed both his on-going employment and salary arrangement with Dowling Associates.

The standard of review in this matter is narrow. In reviewing a decision of an administrative agency, we "will reverse the decision of an administrative agency only if it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). Moreover, where the record reasonably supports the decision below, the validity of the analysis, made by the agency with expertise and training relevant to the subject matter of the decision, will be presumed. See id. at 580.

We generally give substantial deference to the interpretation an agency gives to a statute that the agency is charged with enforcing. R&R Mktg., L.L.C. v. Brown-Forman Corp., 158 N.J. 170, 175 (1999) (citation omitted). If we find sufficient credible evidence in the record to support the agency's conclusions, then we must uphold the agency's findings. See Clowes v. Terminex Int'l., Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 585 (1988); Goodman v. London Metal Exch., Inc., 86 N.J. 19, 28-29 (1981). Accordingly, an administrative agency's decision may be disturbed only where it can be demonstrated that the agency's decision is arbitrary or capricious, unsupported in the record, or in violation of express or implicit legislative policies. N.J. Guild of Hearing Aid Dispensers v. Long, 75 N.J. 544, 562-63 (1978).

We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the issues presented for our consideration do not merit a written decision. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), (E). The findings and conclusions of the Board of Review are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of America, 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974). The answers to questions #40 - #42 were patently false, as were the answers to the questions in the weekly certifications Mayurnik submitted. In such a case, the claimant is disqualified for benefits and must refund all benefits paid after the misrepresentation. N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(d)(1).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-3558-05T2

October 13, 2006