In re the Claim of Canzio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Canzio

29 A.D.2d 900, 287 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4480

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 900 (In re the Claim of Canzio) 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 Canzio, 29 A.D.2d 900, 287 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disqualified claimant from benefits upon finding him unavailable for employment. (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2.) Claimant, last employed in his father’s septic tank cleaning business, a seasonal employment in a resort area, limited his search for employment to other septic tank cleaning firms, although, as he stated: “I have not looked for any other work since I feel it would be useless. The work cannot be done in cold weather, further no one would hire me since my father is in the business.” Claimant had had one year of college education, including accounting, but, nevertheless, failed to seek work anywhere but in the limited area in which he knew there was no chance of obtaining work and thus, as the board found, rendered himself unavailable for employment. The board properly found “ that claimant did not have a genuine attachment to the labor market during the period in issue. He was waiting to return to work for his family’s business. His meager job efforts must be viewed as token attempts to demonstrate a pro forma compliance with the Law.” Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disqualified claimant from benefits upon finding him unavailable for employment. (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2.) Claimant, last employed in his father’s septic tank cleaning business, a seasonal employment in a resort area, limited his search for employment to other septic tank cleaning firms, although, as he stated: “I have not looked for any other work since I feel it would be useless. The work cannot be done in cold weather, further no one would hire me since my father is in the business.” Claimant had had one year of college education, including accounting, but, nevertheless, failed to seek work anywhere but in the limited area in which he knew there was no chance of obtaining work and thus, as the board found, rendered himself unavailable for employment. The board properly found “ that claimant did not have a genuine attachment to the labor market during the period in issue. He was waiting to return to work for his family’s business. His meager job efforts must be viewed as token attempts to demonstrate a pro forma compliance with the Law.” Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 900, 287 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-canzio-nyappdiv-1968.