In re the Claim of Vazquez

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 19, 2014, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she had a reasonable assurance of continued employment.

Claimant worked as a substitute teacher for the New York City Department of Education (hereinafter Department) dur

We affirm. Pursuant to Labor Law § 590 (10), professionals who are employed by educational institutions are precluded from receiving unemployment insurance benefits during the period between two successive academic periods if they have received a reasonable assurance of continued employment (see Matter of Ganster [Commissioner of Labor], 111 AD3d 1014 , 1014 [2013]; Matter of Murphy [Commissioner of Labor], 85 AD3d 1478 , 1479 [2011]). “A reasonable assurance . . . has been interpreted as a representation by the employer that substantially the same economic terms and conditions will continue to apply to the extent that the claimant will receive at least 90% of the earnings received during the first academic period” (Matter of Murphy [Copake-Taconic Cent. School Dist.— Commissioner of Labor], 17 AD3d 762 , 763 [2005] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Rosenbaum [Borough of Manhattan Community Coll., City Univ. of N.Y. —Commissioner of Labor], 125 AD3d 1019 , 1020 [2015]). Here, the employer’s representative stated that claimant worked 169 out of a total of 180 days during the 2013-2014 school year at a rate of $154.97 per day. He indicated that claimant’s per diem rate would be $158.09 during the 2014-2015 school year and he anticipated that she would receive the same amount of work because the Department was not under any budgetary constraints. Notably, the Department sent claimant a letter and an email advising her of the continued need for substitute teachers during the 2014-2015 school year on substantially the same economic terms and conditions that were offered the year before. In view of this, substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that claimant received a reasonable assurance of continued employment and was, therefore, ineligible to receive benefits (see Matter of Murphy [Commissioner of Labor], 85 AD3d at 1479 ; Matter of Sultana [New York City Dept. of Educ .—Com missioner of Labor], 79 AD3d 1552 , 1553 [2010]).