MARTIN SHAPIRO v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR et al.
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3888-05T1
MARTIN SHAPIRO,
Claimant-Appellant,
V.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and
TRADER PUBLISHING COMPANY,
Respondents-Respondents.
________________________
Argued November 27, 2006 - Decided December 18, 2006
Before Judges Lintner and S.L. Reisner.
On appeal from a Final Decision of the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 96,504.
Martin Shapiro, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Ellen A. Reichart, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Board of Review (Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney; Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Reichart, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Claimant, Martin Shapiro, appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review, disqualifying him from receiving unemployment benefits for six weeks, from October 23, 2005 through December 3, 2005, on the ground that he was terminated for misconduct connected with the work, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(b). However, at oral argument, the deputy attorney general advised us that such disqualification would not prevent Mr. Shapiro from eventually receiving the full twenty-six weeks of benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled, so long as he had remained unemployed long enough to qualify. At our direction, the State subsequently provided us with proof that in fact Mr. Shapiro did receive the full twenty-six weeks of benefits, during the period December 10, 2005 through June 3, 2006. Mr. Shapiro did not submit any opposition to this submission.
We conclude that although Mr. Shapiro's receipt of benefits was delayed, he ultimately received all the benefits to which he would have been entitled had he not been disqualified for the initial six weeks of unemployment. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal as moot.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-3888-05T1
December 18, 2006
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.