Preview:

a2614-06.opn.html

N.J.S.A. 43:21-60(a) and N.J.A.C. 12:23-5.1(a). We affirm. "> Original Wordprocessor Version (NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) The status of this decision is unpublished

Original Wordprocessor Version This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*. (NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2614-06T22614-06T2 CURTIS R. WARD, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, NORTH WARD CENTER, Respondents. ______________________________________________________________

Submitted April 9, 2008 - Decided Before Judges Parker and R. B. Coleman. On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 127,636. Curtis R. Ward, appellant pro se. Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; John C. Turi, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM Claimant Curtis R. Ward appeals from a Final Decision of the Board of Review (Board) rendered on December 22, 2006 denying his application for additional unemployment benefits during training, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-60 . .

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2614-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:30:17 PM]

a2614-06.opn.html

. ." Bonilla v. Bd. of Review, 337 N.J. Super. 612, 615 (App. Div. 2001) (citations omitted). The record established in this case does not support a conclusion that Mr. Ward was terminated as part of a "substantial reduction of employment" at the North Ward. N.J.S.A. 43:21-60(a). At the telephonic hearing, claimant asserted that he had heard from other workers at the North Ward that some of his previous coworkers had been fired. This contention was unsupported by other credible evidence and constituted rank speculation and hearsay. Even if true, the departure of two other workers from the North Ward Center would not constitute a substantial reduction in the work force. The Appeal Tribunal and the Board denied claimant's request for additional unemployment benefits based on his failure to satisfy his burden of proof. We are convinced that this decision was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, and thus, we affirm.

Affirmed. The settlement agreement was included in appellant's appendix despite a confidentiality provision in the agreement. (continued) (continued) 5 A-2614-06T2 0x01 graphic

June 13, 2008

This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden. This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2614-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:30:17 PM]



Download a2614-06.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law