In re the Claim of Di Salvo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Di Salvo

30 A.D.2d 755, 291 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3543

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

DecidedJune 28, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 755 (In re the Claim of Di Salvo) 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 Di Salvo, 30 A.D.2d 755, 291 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 25, 1967, disqualifying claimant from unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant worked in a dress shop for approximately 12 years and resided in Brooklyn with her husband. Her husband retired and they moved to Long Island at which time claimant left her employment. The board found her disqualified from receiving benefits because she left her job by following her husband to a new locality (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1, par. [b], cl. [2]). We find no reason for disturbing the decision of the board and, in fact, at the hearing before the Referee in response to the question, “ What, happened to the job with Hamilton Dress ? ” claimant stated in almost statutory language, “I had to go away to follow my husband.” Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.

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

Aulisi, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 25, 1967, disqualifying claimant from unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant worked in a dress shop for approximately 12 years and resided in Brooklyn with her husband. Her husband retired and they moved to Long Island at which time claimant left her employment. The board found her disqualified from receiving benefits because she left her job by following her husband to a new locality (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1, par. [b], cl. [2]). We find no reason for disturbing the decision of the board and, in fact, at the hearing before the Referee in response to the question, “ What, happened to the job with Hamilton Dress ? ” claimant stated in almost statutory language, “I had to go away to follow my husband.” Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 755, 291 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-di-salvo-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack