In re the Claim of Caruso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Caruso

34 A.D.2d 863, 310 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4772

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

DecidedMay 21, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 863 (In re the Claim of Caruso) 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 Caruso, 34 A.D.2d 863, 310 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Greenblott, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 5, 1969, ruling claimant ineligible for benefits effective October 21, 1968 on the ground that she was not available for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2). Whether a person is available for employment during a specific period is a question of fact, and the board’s determination, if rendered upon substantial evidence, must be upheld (Matter of Bewnett [Catherwood], 33 A D 2d 946). There is ample evidence to support the finding of the board that appellant voluntarily left her full-time job in New York City to live with her husband in Connecticut; that “ She did not wish to work five days a week in New York City because her home in Connecticut was about 106 miles away ”; that she “tried to get work * * * in New York City two days a week * * * on Thursday and Friday”; that she “made meager and sporadic efforts to find employment in Connecticut between October 21, 1968 and May 8, 1969 ”. Decision affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Aulisi, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Greenblott, J.

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

Greenblott, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 5, 1969, ruling claimant ineligible for benefits effective October 21, 1968 on the ground that she was not available for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2). Whether a person is available for employment during a specific period is a question of fact, and the board’s determination, if rendered upon substantial evidence, must be upheld (Matter of Bewnett [Catherwood], 33 A D 2d 946). There is ample evidence to support the finding of the board that appellant voluntarily left her full-time job in New York City to live with her husband in Connecticut; that “ She did not wish to work five days a week in New York City because her home in Connecticut was about 106 miles away ”; that she “tried to get work * * * in New York City two days a week * * * on Thursday and Friday”; that she “made meager and sporadic efforts to find employment in Connecticut between October 21, 1968 and May 8, 1969 ”. Decision affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Aulisi, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Greenblott, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 863, 310 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-caruso-nyappdiv-1970.