In re the Claim of Dymek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Dymek

240 A.D.2d 800, 658 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6037

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

DecidedJune 5, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 800 (In re the Claim of Dymek) 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 Dymek, 240 A.D.2d 800, 658 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6037 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 4, 1996, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim.

Substantial evidence supports the decision denying claimant benefits. Claimant did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim because he received severance pay for one year prior to the filing of his application. This period does not constitute weeks of employment within [801]*801the meaning of Labor Law § 524 (see, Matter of Terranova [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 847); consequently, the finding of ineligibility is affirmed (see, Matter of Barrett [Hudacs], 191 AD2d 920, 921). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Spain and Carpinello, 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 January 4, 1996, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim.

Substantial evidence supports the decision denying claimant benefits. Claimant did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim because he received severance pay for one year prior to the filing of his application. This period does not constitute weeks of employment within [801]*801the meaning of Labor Law § 524 (see, Matter of Terranova [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 847); consequently, the finding of ineligibility is affirmed (see, Matter of Barrett [Hudacs], 191 AD2d 920, 921). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 800, 658 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-dymek-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack