NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2523-18T4
SINALY SYLLA,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
and FORWARD AIR SERVICES,
LLC,
Respondents.
_____________________________
Submitted January 21, 2020 – Decided February 3, 2020
Before Judges Sabatino and Geiger.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of
Labor, Docket No. 160,946.
Sinaly Sylla, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Board of Review (Donna Sue Arons,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher W.
Weber, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Respondent Forward Air Services, LLC, has not filed a
brief.
PER CURIAM
In this appeal from the denial of unemployment benefits, the Board of
Review found claimant Sinaly Sylla was ineligible for such benefits under
N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), because he left work voluntarily without good cause
attributable to the work. The Board's final agency decision, dated November
28, 2018, followed a telephonic hearing before an Appeal Tribunal in October
2018.
Appellant was a forklift driver. He had been employed by Forward Air
Services for four years. His last day of work was May 17, 2018. He was arrested
and incarcerated on a drug charge the following day. He also faced immigration
issues. Appellant was unable to post bail and remained incarcerated until he
was released from custody on July 27, 2018. Work was available for him at the
time he was arrested and separated from employment. Regardless of whether
appellant's incarceration was justified, his inability to perform his duties for his
employer was not attributable to his work.
Pursuant to the applicable statute, N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(e)(10), separation
from employment shall be considered voluntary where the separation is for
incarceration. Accordingly, appellant did not meet his burden of proof under
A-2523-18T4
2
the statute. See also Haley v. Bd. of Review, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div.
2020).
Affirmed.
A-2523-18T4
3