In re the Claim of Carr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Carr

231 A.D.2d 782, 647 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8786

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

DecidedSeptember 5, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 782 (In re the Claim of Carr) 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 Carr, 231 A.D.2d 782, 647 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 14, 1995, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he failed to comply with registration requirements.

Claimant was employed as a paralegal with a temporary agency from August 1987 through March 1989. Claimant allegedly filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits in March 1989. He subsequently obtained intermittent employment working as a paralegal for a few weeks in December 1989 and for a theater group from the spring of 1990 through May 1991. Thereafter, he applied for and received unemployment insurance benefits through July 1992. In -1993, he made further inquiry concerning his March 1989 claim for benefits. The Board found him ineligible to receive benefits because he failed to comply with registration requirements. Although claimant maintains that he did, in fact, file a claim in March 1989, a representative of the Department of Labor testified that she reviewed the local unemployment insurance office records and did not find any indication that claimant had filed a claim at that time. Inasmuch as this conflicting testimony presented a question of credibility for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Rios [Pine Hill Trailways—Sweeney], 228 AD2d 760; Matter of Hibbard [Sweeney], 227 AD2d 698), we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Mercure, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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 August 14, 1995, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he failed to comply with registration requirements.

Claimant was employed as a paralegal with a temporary agency from August 1987 through March 1989. Claimant allegedly filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits in March 1989. He subsequently obtained intermittent employment working as a paralegal for a few weeks in December 1989 and for a theater group from the spring of 1990 through May 1991. Thereafter, he applied for and received unemployment insurance benefits through July 1992. In -1993, he made further inquiry concerning his March 1989 claim for benefits. The Board found him ineligible to receive benefits because he failed to comply with registration requirements. Although claimant maintains that he did, in fact, file a claim in March 1989, a representative of the Department of Labor testified that she reviewed the local unemployment insurance office records and did not find any indication that claimant had filed a claim at that time. Inasmuch as this conflicting testimony presented a question of credibility for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Rios [Pine Hill Trailways—Sweeney], 228 AD2d 760; Matter of Hibbard [Sweeney], 227 AD2d 698), we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Mercure, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 782, 647 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-carr-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack