ROSEMARIE A. POLITO v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1664-05T31664-05T3

ROSEMARIE A. POLITO,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR, and PARSIPPANY

BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Respondents-Respondents.

______________________________

 

Submitted September 20, 2006 - Decided February 26, 2007

Before Judges Collester and Baxter.

On appeal from the Board of Review,

Department of Labor, Docket No. 84,312.

Rosemarie A. Polito, appellant pro se.

Anne Milgram, Acting Attorney General,

attorney for respondent Board of Review

(Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney

General, of counsel; John C. Turi, Deputy

Attorney General, on the brief).

Respondent Parsippany Board of Education

has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Petitioner, Rosemarie Polito, appeals from the final determination of the Board of Review denying her application for unemployment benefits as of July 17, 2005. We affirm.

Petitioner was employed by the Parsippany-Troy Hills Board of Education as a kindergarten assistant until her discharge in June 2005. She filed a petition on July 17, 2005, and her petition was denied by a deputy to the Director of Unemployment Insurance on August 9, 2005, for the following reason:

You state that due to your medical conditions and the associated, long-term child care issues that have prevented you from working regularly in the past, you cannot work now.

You are unable to work. Benefits are payable only for those periods that you are able to work. You are ineligible for unemployment benefits. You may be entitled to temporary disability benefits.

Petitioner appealed the deputy's decision to the Appeal Tribunal and testified under oath during a telephone hearing. T She testified that she did not have medical or child care restrictions which prevented her from working from and after July 17, 2005, and that the deputy's decision was the result of a misunderstanding. However, she further stated that while she was able to work as of the date of her petition, she sought employment only in child care, or as a teacher's assistant and made only about one employer contact per week. The Appeal Tribunal determined that since petitioner had been able and available for work but did not seek work beyond minimal efforts, she was not entitled to benefits. On appeal the Board of Review affirmed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal.

The record confirms that petitioner made only token efforts to obtain a job during the time of her unemployment and therefore did not satisfy the statutory requirement of being "available for work." Worsnop v. Board of Review, 92 N.J. Super. 260, 264 (App. Div. 1966). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Board of Review. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1664-05T3

 

February 26, 2007