In re the Claim of Asher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Asher

29 A.D.2d 995, 289 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4121

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 29, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 995 (In re the Claim of Asher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Claim of Asher, 29 A.D.2d 995, 289 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling her ineligible for benefits effective July 3, 1961 on the ground that she was not available for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2). The question of whether a claimant has made sufficient efforts to meet the statutory test of [996]*996availability for employment is factual and thus within the sole province of the board if its determination is supported by substantial evidence (e.g., Matter of Maloney [Catherwood], 29 A D 2d 592). We cannot say that the board on the instant record, and particularly in view of her vague and evasive testimony about her search for employment, could not find that claimant’s efforts in Chicago from July 3 to July 10 or on her return to New York “ were not sufficiently substantial to show that she was ready, willing, and able to work”. Accordingly, the board’s decision must be affirmed. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum decision by Reynolds, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling her ineligible for benefits effective July 3, 1961 on the ground that she was not available for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2). The question of whether a claimant has made sufficient efforts to meet the statutory test of [996]*996availability for employment is factual and thus within the sole province of the board if its determination is supported by substantial evidence (e.g., Matter of Maloney [Catherwood], 29 A D 2d 592). We cannot say that the board on the instant record, and particularly in view of her vague and evasive testimony about her search for employment, could not find that claimant’s efforts in Chicago from July 3 to July 10 or on her return to New York “ were not sufficiently substantial to show that she was ready, willing, and able to work”. Accordingly, the board’s decision must be affirmed. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum decision by Reynolds, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 995, 289 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-asher-nyappdiv-1968.