In re the Claim of Bernstein

278 A.D. 625, 101 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4122
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 16, 1951
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 278 A.D. 625 (In re the Claim of Bernstein) 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 Bernstein, 278 A.D. 625, 101 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Opinion

Appeal by the Industrial Commissioner from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which affirmed a decision of an unemployment insurance referee overruling an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner that a forefeiture of twenty-four “effective days ” be imposed under section 594 of the Unemployment Insurance Law (Labor Law, art. 18) because the claimant had “wilfully made a false statement to obtain benefits ”. Claimant was laid off for a temporary period on August 15, 1949, and filed a claim for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Law the same day. Two days later, on August 17, 1949, claimant returned to work for the same employer for five and one-half hours and was paid $23. At the end of the week on August 23, 1949, claimant certified that he had suffered “ total unemployment ” during the entire week ending August 21, 1949. Concededly this information was false and claimant knew at the time that it was false. The referee and the Unemployment Appeal Board have excused the false statement on the theory that claimant misinterpreted the law and did not intend to defraud. Section 594 does not require a criminal intent or proof sufficient to support larceny. The officials charged with the proper administration of the Unemployment Insurance Law are entitled to true facts upon which to make their determination. If a claimant certifies to a false fact, knowing that it is false, the statute authorizes the forfeiture, regardless of claimant’s interpretation of the ultimate effect of his false statement. Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, on the law, and the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner reinstated, without costs. Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re the Claim of Petty
90 A.D.2d 604 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Meyer v. Skyline Mobile Homes
589 P.2d 89 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1979)
In re the Claim of Juris
33 A.D.2d 852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1969)
In re the Claim of Rosenblitt
27 A.D.2d 777 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1967)
In re the Claim of Clemente
27 A.D.2d 676 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1967)
In re the Claim of Golia
27 A.D.2d 594 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
In re the Claim of Bailey
18 A.D.2d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1962)
In re the Claim of Green
15 A.D.2d 855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1962)
In re the Claim of Vick
12 A.D.2d 120 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
In re the Claim of Bunzl
1 A.D.2d 46 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 A.D. 625, 101 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-bernstein-nyappdiv-1951.