| Matter of Ball (City of Syracuse\MCommissioner of Labor) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01037 [70 AD3d 1151] |
| February 11, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Larry V. Ball, Appellant. City ofSyracuse, Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. |
—[*1] Nancy J. Larson, Corporation Counsel, Syracuse, for City of Syracuse, respondent. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (Dawn A. Foshee of counsel), forCommissioner of Labor, respondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August12, 2008, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurancebenefits because he voluntarily separated from his employment without good cause.
Claimant was employed as a plant examiner for the City of Syracuse, Onondaga Countyfrom June 1995 until October 2007, when he was terminated for having violated the employer'sresidency policy. Pursuant to the Syracuse City Charter, employees "shall be at the time of theirappointment and continue to be during their continuance in the employment of the City,residents of the City of Syracuse except as otherwise provided by law, local law or ordinance ofthe Council" (Syracuse City Charter § 8-112 [2]).
The facts here are undisputed. Claimant concedes that he maintained a room in Syracuse forthe purposes of satisfying the residency requirement, but that his primary residence and domicileis in the Town of Sullivan, Madison County. In February 2007, the employer's director ofpersonnel sent a memorandum to all department heads for distribution to all [*2]employees, stating that the residency requirement, as used in theCharter, means the "actual principal domicile" of the employee and that an employee claiming aschool tax relief exemption at an address outside the city would be judged not to be incompliance. When, among other things, the employer was thereafter notified that claimant wasreceiving a school tax relief exemption on his property in Sullivan for 2007, his employment wasterminated. Following administrative proceedings, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Boardruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits inasmuchas his noncompliance with the employer's residence policy provoked his discharge and amountedto a voluntary separation from employment without good cause. Claimant appeals.
We affirm. The sole issue on this appeal is whether the Board's interpretation of theresidency requirement contained in the Syracuse City Charter was proper. Judicial review isappropriate where the only issue before the Board is one of statutory interpretation and, wheresuch interpretation does not depend upon the special competence of the agency, no deferenceneed be accorded (see Matter of Gruber [New York City Dept. ofPersonnel—Sweeney], 89 NY2d 225, 231-232 [1996]; Matter of Price Chopper Operating Co.,Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 52 AD3d 924, 925 [2008]; Matter of Palminteri v Lex Fire ProtectionCorp., 23 AD3d 745, 746 n [2005]). Nevertheless, we conclude that the Board properlyinterpreted the term "resident" as it is used in the Syracuse City Charter. Despite the technicaldistinction, the statutory use of the term "resident" is frequently construed to be synonymouswith "domicile," particularly where the status described confers a privilege or benefit (seeMatter of Hosley v Curry, 85 NY2d 447, 451 [1995]; Matter of Ball v City of Syracuse, 60 AD3d 1312, 1313 [2009],lv dismissed 13 NY3d 823 [2009]; State of New York v Collins, 78 AD2d 295,296-297 [1981]; Matter of Contento v Kohinke, 42 AD2d 1025, 1025-1026 [1973],lv denied 33 NY2d 520 [1974]). Morever, it appears that it is the long-standing policy ofthe employer to interpret the Syracuse City Charter in this manner, as evidenced by its internalmemoranda dating back to at least 1991. As such, we find that the Board properly disqualifiedclaimant from receiving benefits.
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr. and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision isaffirmed, without costs.