In re the Claim of Beeker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Beeker

82 A.D.2d 953, 440 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14687

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

DecidedJune 4, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.2d 953 (In re the Claim of Beeker) 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 Beeker, 82 A.D.2d 953, 440 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 16, 1980, which affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause, charging her with a recoverable overpayment of $1,666 in benefits, and holding that she willfully made false statements to obtain benefits by reason of which forfeiture of eight effective days was imposed. The record contains substantial evidence to support the finding that claimant left her position without good cause and, therefore, the board’s determination should be affirmed (Matter of Coriou [Ross], 53 AD2d 934; cf. Matter of Stark [Ross], 66 AD2d 942; Matter of Fried [Ross], 54 AD2d 521). Refusal of offered employment results in disqualification for benefits (Matter of Alexander [Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A—Ross], 59 AD2d 960). Failure to make full disclosure of a job refusal constitutes willful misrepresentation (cf. Matter of Tiano [Catherwood], 27 AD2d 879). The board determination is supported by substantial evidence and should not be disturbed. Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Casey, Yesawich, Jr., and Weiss, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 16, 1980, which affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause, charging her with a recoverable overpayment of $1,666 in benefits, and holding that she willfully made false statements to obtain benefits by reason of which forfeiture of eight effective days was imposed. The record contains substantial evidence to support the finding that claimant left her position without good cause and, therefore, the board’s determination should be affirmed (Matter of Coriou [Ross], 53 AD2d 934; cf. Matter of Stark [Ross], 66 AD2d 942; Matter of Fried [Ross], 54 AD2d 521). Refusal of offered employment results in disqualification for benefits (Matter of Alexander [Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A—Ross], 59 AD2d 960). Failure to make full disclosure of a job refusal constitutes willful misrepresentation (cf. Matter of Tiano [Catherwood], 27 AD2d 879). The board determination is supported by substantial evidence and should not be disturbed. Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Casey, Yesawich, Jr., and Weiss, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 953, 440 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-beeker-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack