In re the Claim of Canale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Canale

277 A.D.2d 960

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 960 (In re the Claim of Canale) 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 Canale, 277 A.D.2d 960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which determined that claimant was not disqualified from benefits because of a refusal on her part to accept employment without good cause. Claimant was last employed as a switchboard operator at Auburn, New York. She was offered employment of the same nature at Seneca Falls, New York, some eighteen miles from her home. The appeal board held that the distance involved was unreasonable and the expense of travel was $2.35 per week more than that required in her former employment, with no provision being made for reimbursement. We find nothing in this record which would impel us to reverse the decision of the appeal board as a matter of law. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Brewster, Deyo, Bergan and Coon, JJ.

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 which determined that claimant was not disqualified from benefits because of a refusal on her part to accept employment without good cause. Claimant was last employed as a switchboard operator at Auburn, New York. She was offered employment of the same nature at Seneca Falls, New York, some eighteen miles from her home. The appeal board held that the distance involved was unreasonable and the expense of travel was $2.35 per week more than that required in her former employment, with no provision being made for reimbursement. We find nothing in this record which would impel us to reverse the decision of the appeal board as a matter of law. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Brewster, Deyo, Bergan and Coon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-canale-nyappdiv-1950.