In re the Claim of Davidson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Davidson

12 A.D.2d 713, 208 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6260

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 A.D.2d 713 (In re the Claim of Davidson) 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 Davidson, 12 A.D.2d 713, 208 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which held him ineligible for benefits for the period December 16, 1958 to March 15, 1959, finding that he filed for benefits effective March 16, 1959, about one year after he became unemployed, and thus failed to comply with reporting and registration requirements (Labor Law, § 590, subd. 1; § 596). Although claimant was under the care of a physician, he was about and compliance was not prevented by illness or other condition. The board’s findings, being supported by substantial evidence, all of it, in fact, submitted by claimant, must be affirmed: and the record discloses no basis upon which we could disturb the denial o? claimant’s application to predate the claim. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which held him ineligible for benefits for the period December 16, 1958 to March 15, 1959, finding that he filed for benefits effective March 16, 1959, about one year after he became unemployed, and thus failed to comply with reporting and registration requirements (Labor Law, § 590, subd. 1; § 596). Although claimant was under the care of a physician, he was about and compliance was not prevented by illness or other condition. The board’s findings, being supported by substantial evidence, all of it, in fact, submitted by claimant, must be affirmed: and the record discloses no basis upon which we could disturb the denial o? claimant’s application to predate the claim. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 713, 208 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-davidson-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack