ANGEL A. MACHADO v. BOARD OF REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and CASSADY FARMS, L.L.C
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3538-07T1
ANGEL A. MACHADO,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and
CASSADY FARMS, L.L.C.,
Respondents.
_____________________________
December 8, 2009
Submitted November 30, 2009 - Decided
Before Judges Reisner and Chambers.
On appeal from a Final Decision of the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 168,082.
Angelo A. Machado, appellant pro se.
Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Alan C. Stephens, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Claimant Angel A. Machado appeals from a February 29, 2008 decision of the Board of Review denying his claim for unemployment benefits. We affirm.
Machado performed seasonal agricultural work for Cassady Farms, L.L.C. The 2007 working season lasted until October 2007, but Machado stopped working in August 2007 to avoid a reduction in his social security benefits. Following a telephone hearing, the hearing examiner determined that Machado was disqualified for unemployment benefits, because he left his job voluntarily "without good cause attributable to [his] work." N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). The Board adopted the hearing officer s decision.
Having reviewed the record, we find no basis to disturb the Board s determination, which is supported by substantial credible evidence and is consistent with applicable law. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). While Machado s employer agreed that he could stop working before the season ended, this fact does not entitle him to unemployment benefits. Machado left his job in order to preserve his right to collect his full social security benefits. Under the unemployment benefits law, N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), this is considered to be a personal reason unconnected with the work. See Brady v. Board of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 213 (1997).
Affirmed.
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.