In re the Claim of Bogusky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Bogusky

34 A.D.2d 871, 310 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686

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

DecidedMay 26, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 871 (In re the Claim of Bogusky) 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 Bogusky, 34 A.D.2d 871, 310 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Sweeney, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 29, 1969, holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits on the ground that he was not totally unemployed. The sole question on this appeal is whether there is substantial evidence to support the -board’s findings that claimant was not totally unemployed during the period involved and that he -made willful misrepresentations in order to obtain benefits. It is undisputed that claimant was employed as a building superintendent during the entire period he received benefits. The board was not required to credit his contention that he worked only on Saturdays. (Matter of Gecaj [Catherwood], 33 A D 2d 592.) He [872]*872received $50 per month in addition to an apartment. "The question o£ total unemployment is a factual one (Matter of Vasquenz [Catherwood], 26 A D 2d 859), as is the question of credibility (Matter of llibassi [CatherwoodJ, 27 A D 2d 673). It is also undisputed that claimant stated weekly that he was not employed and had done no work. (.See Matter of Vick [Catherwood], 12 A D 2d 120.) On this record we must conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the decision of the board. Decision affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Aulisi, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Sweeney, J.

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

Sweeney, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 29, 1969, holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits on the ground that he was not totally unemployed. The sole question on this appeal is whether there is substantial evidence to support the -board’s findings that claimant was not totally unemployed during the period involved and that he -made willful misrepresentations in order to obtain benefits. It is undisputed that claimant was employed as a building superintendent during the entire period he received benefits. The board was not required to credit his contention that he worked only on Saturdays. (Matter of Gecaj [Catherwood], 33 A D 2d 592.) He [872]*872received $50 per month in addition to an apartment. "The question o£ total unemployment is a factual one (Matter of Vasquenz [Catherwood], 26 A D 2d 859), as is the question of credibility (Matter of llibassi [CatherwoodJ, 27 A D 2d 673). It is also undisputed that claimant stated weekly that he was not employed and had done no work. (.See Matter of Vick [Catherwood], 12 A D 2d 120.) On this record we must conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the decision of the board. Decision affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Aulisi, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Sweeney, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 871, 310 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-bogusky-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack