GISELA V. VEGA v. BOARD OF REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and ELIZABETH BOARD OF EDUCATION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4200-09T2

GISELA V. VEGA,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR and ELIZABETH BOARD

OF EDUCATION,

Respondents.

____________________________________________________

April 4, 2011

Submitted March 22, 2011 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Roe.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 242,911.

Gisela V. Vega, appellant pro se.

Paula T. Dow, 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).

Respondent Elizabeth Board of Education has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Appellant Gisela V. Vega appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review, which affirmed a determination by an Appeal Tribunal that she was ineligible under N.J.S.A. 43:21-4(g)(1) for unemployment compensation benefits from June 28, 2009 through September 12, 2009 because she was a substitute teacher for the Elizabeth Board of Education during the 2008-09 school year who had a reasonable assurance of reemployment during the 2009-10 school year.

We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the Appeal Tribunal's decision. We note that the facts of this case are essentially the same as in Patrick v. Board of Review, 171 N.J. Super. 424 (App. Div. 1979), in which a teacher who had served as a long-term substitute during the preceding year was not scheduled to return in that capacity in the following school year, but continued to be on an approved list to be a day-to-day substitute, was denied unemployment compensation benefits during the period of the recess between academic years. In affirming this denial, we stated that "[t]he claimant . . . failed to demonstrate that she did not have a reasonable assurance of employment during the [following] school year." Id. at 426. The same is true in this case. We also note that the Appeal Tribunal's decision only deals with appellant's eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits for the period from June 28, 2009 through September 12, 2009. It does not deal with her

eligibility for any period after September 12, 2009.

Affirmed.