In re the Claim of Dricks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Dricks

51 A.D.2d 839, 380 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11442

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 19, 1976·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 10, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits because she was not available for employment. The question of whether claimant, by narrowing the geographic area in which she was willing to work by defining that area as being one she could traverse by walking or, at most, by bus, disqualified herself from receiving benefits by characterizing herself as a claimant "who is not ready, willing and able to work in his usual employment” (Labor Law, § 591, subd 2) is a question of fact which the board resolved against claimant. This finding is supported by [840] substantial evidence and cannot be disturbed. (Matter of Bennett [Catherwoodj 33 AD2d 946.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Mahoney and Main, JJ., concur.

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 September 10, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits because she was not available for employment. The question of whether claimant, by narrowing the geographic area in which she was willing to work by defining that area as being one she could traverse by walking or, at most, by bus, disqualified herself from receiving benefits by characterizing herself as a claimant "who is not ready, willing and able to work in his usual employment” (Labor Law, § 591, subd 2) is a question of fact which the board resolved against claimant. This finding is supported by [840] substantial evidence and cannot be disturbed. (Matter of Bennett [Catherwoodj 33 AD2d 946.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Mahoney and Main, JJ., concur.

In re the Claim of Dricks, 51 A.D.2d 839, 380 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11442 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

51 A.D.2d 839 (In re the Claim of Dricks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related