In re the Claim of Becker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Becker

27 A.D.2d 594, 275 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2782

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 594 (In re the Claim of Becker) 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 Becker, 27 A.D.2d 594, 275 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying unemployment insurance benefits to claimant-appellant. It is undisputed that, in April, 1965, the claimant, an Assistant Workmen’s Compensation Claims Examiner in the Hew York State Department of Labor, reached the mandatory retirement age of 70. His request for an extension of the retirement was denied, and he applied for retirement benefits under article 2 of the Retirement and Social Security Law which he has been receiving since May 1, 1965. It is also undisputed that, since 1941, the claimant had no other employer than the State of Hew York. The claimant, having retired from State service and being eligible for benefits under article 2 of the Retirement and Social Security Law is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits based on wages paid to him by the State. (Labor Law, § 590, subd. 5; Matter of McArdle [Corsi], 274 App. Div. 959; Matter of Riley [Catherwood], 24 A D 2d 1040.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Brink, JJ., concur.

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

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying unemployment insurance benefits to claimant-appellant. It is undisputed that, in April, 1965, the claimant, an Assistant Workmen’s Compensation Claims Examiner in the Hew York State Department of Labor, reached the mandatory retirement age of 70. His request for an extension of the retirement was denied, and he applied for retirement benefits under article 2 of the Retirement and Social Security Law which he has been receiving since May 1, 1965. It is also undisputed that, since 1941, the claimant had no other employer than the State of Hew York. The claimant, having retired from State service and being eligible for benefits under article 2 of the Retirement and Social Security Law is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits based on wages paid to him by the State. (Labor Law, § 590, subd. 5; Matter of McArdle [Corsi], 274 App. Div. 959; Matter of Riley [Catherwood], 24 A D 2d 1040.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Brink, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 594, 275 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-becker-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack