In re the Claim of Colaci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Colaci

203 A.D.2d 834, 611 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4434

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

DecidedApril 28, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 834 (In re the Claim of Colaci) 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 Colaci, 203 A.D.2d 834, 611 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 20, 1992, which, upon reconsideration, rescinded a prior decision and ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim.

There is substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that claimant had insufficient weeks of employment in her base period and was therefore not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Weeks of sick leave are not considered weeks of employment and such payments are not regarded as [835]*835remuneration for establishing a claimant’s entitlement to benefits. Claimant’s remaining arguments have been reviewed and rejected for lack of merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., 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from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 20, 1992, which, upon reconsideration, rescinded a prior decision and ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim.

There is substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that claimant had insufficient weeks of employment in her base period and was therefore not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Weeks of sick leave are not considered weeks of employment and such payments are not regarded as [835]*835remuneration for establishing a claimant’s entitlement to benefits. Claimant’s remaining arguments have been reviewed and rejected for lack of merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 834, 611 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-colaci-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack