In re the Claim of Clemente

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Clemente

27 A.D.2d 676, 276 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5086

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 676 (In re the Claim of Clemente) 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 Clemente, 27 A.D.2d 676, 276 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding that claimant willfully made a false statement to obtain benefits and imposing a forfeiture of 24 effective days (Labor Law, § 594). “ Section 594 does not require a criminal intent or proof sufficient to support larceny” (Matter of Bernstein [Corsi], 278 App. Div. 625, affd. 303 N. Y. 755). Furthermore, “ Whether the necessary ‘element of scienter and knowledge of falsity or wrongfulness ’ is present in a given ease is a question of fact and therefore is for the board to determine.” (Matter of Soroka [Catherwood], 24 A D 2d 920, 921; Matter of Campbell [Catherwood], 23 A D 2d 515; Matter of Bailey [Catherwood], 18 A D 2d 727). We cannot say, as a matter of law, that the board on the instant record could not reach the decision rendered. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur with Reynolds, J.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding that claimant willfully made a false statement to obtain benefits and imposing a forfeiture of 24 effective days (Labor Law, § 594). “ Section 594 does not require a criminal intent or proof sufficient to support larceny” (Matter of Bernstein [Corsi], 278 App. Div. 625, affd. 303 N. Y. 755). Furthermore, “ Whether the necessary ‘element of scienter and knowledge of falsity or wrongfulness ’ is present in a given ease is a question of fact and therefore is for the board to determine.” (Matter of Soroka [Catherwood], 24 A D 2d 920, 921; Matter of Campbell [Catherwood], 23 A D 2d 515; Matter of Bailey [Catherwood], 18 A D 2d 727). We cannot say, as a matter of law, that the board on the instant record could not reach the decision rendered. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur with Reynolds, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 676, 276 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-clemente-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack