In re the Claim of Braverman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Braverman

51 A.D.2d 1070, 380 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11902

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 1070 (In re the Claim of Braverman) 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 Braverman, 51 A.D.2d 1070, 380 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 16, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits on the ground that she was unavailable for employment. The board found that claimant continually made the same job contacts and sought employment in the clerical and administrative fields although her experience in these fields was extremely limited. It was the board’s conclusion that claimant’s job search was not active and diligent, and thus found her to be unavailable for employment. There is substantial evidence in the record to support these findings and we must, therefore, affirm. Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Mahoney, 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 July 16, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits on the ground that she was unavailable for employment. The board found that claimant continually made the same job contacts and sought employment in the clerical and administrative fields although her experience in these fields was extremely limited. It was the board’s conclusion that claimant’s job search was not active and diligent, and thus found her to be unavailable for employment. There is substantial evidence in the record to support these findings and we must, therefore, affirm. Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Mahoney, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 1070, 380 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-braverman-nyappdiv-1976.