In re the Claim of Didona

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Didona

26 A.D.2d 873, 273 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3295

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 873 (In re the Claim of Didona) 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 Didona, 26 A.D.2d 873, 273 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J. P.

The claimant appeals from a decision denying unemployment insurance benefit? The board determined that the claimant was ineligible to receive benefits effective July 8, 1965 on the ground that she was not available for employment. There was no claim for benefits subsequent to July 25. The record discloses that during the period in question claimant answered one newspaper advertisement by telephone, made two other calls to temporary employment agencies and having made no further attempts to obtain employment, there was substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that the efforts were meager; that claimant was not sufficiently attached to the labor market and not available for employment. Decision affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur; Taylor, J., not voting.

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

Herlihy, J. P.

The claimant appeals from a decision denying unemployment insurance benefit? The board determined that the claimant was ineligible to receive benefits effective July 8, 1965 on the ground that she was not available for employment. There was no claim for benefits subsequent to July 25. The record discloses that during the period in question claimant answered one newspaper advertisement by telephone, made two other calls to temporary employment agencies and having made no further attempts to obtain employment, there was substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that the efforts were meager; that claimant was not sufficiently attached to the labor market and not available for employment. Decision affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur; Taylor, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 873, 273 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-didona-nyappdiv-1966.