In re the Claim of Bartlett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Bartlett

32 A.D.2d 591, 299 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4140

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

DecidedApril 24, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 591 (In re the Claim of Bartlett) 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 Bartlett, 32 A.D.2d 591, 299 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of .the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding him ineligible to receive benefits effective August 22, 1966 on the ground that he was not totally unemployed (Labor Law, § 522). Claimant, an employee of the National Gypsum Company, became unemployed due to a strike and after the expiration of the statutory suspension period (Labor Law, § 592, subd. 1) filed for benefits. The board has ruled him ineligible in that he was not totally unemployed within the meaning of section 522 of the Labor Law because of his ownership and operation of a farm on which he resided. The determination of total unemployment is factual and thus within the sole province of the board if supported by substantial evidence (e.g., Matter of Carasso [Catherwood], 23 A D 2d 935). On the instant record the board could properly find that in view of claimant’s farm activities he was self-employed and therefore not totally unemployed (Matter of Jordal [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 745; Matter of Soroka [Catherwood], 24 A D 2d 920). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum 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 holding him ineligible to receive benefits effective August 22, 1966 on the ground that he was not totally unemployed (Labor Law, § 522). Claimant, an employee of the National Gypsum Company, became unemployed due to a strike and after the expiration of the statutory suspension period (Labor Law, § 592, subd. 1) filed for benefits. The board has ruled him ineligible in that he was not totally unemployed within the meaning of section 522 of the Labor Law because of his ownership and operation of a farm on which he resided. The determination of total unemployment is factual and thus within the sole province of the board if supported by substantial evidence (e.g., Matter of Carasso [Catherwood], 23 A D 2d 935). On the instant record the board could properly find that in view of claimant’s farm activities he was self-employed and therefore not totally unemployed (Matter of Jordal [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 745; Matter of Soroka [Catherwood], 24 A D 2d 920). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 591, 299 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-bartlett-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack