In re the Claim of Fahy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Fahy

29 A.D.2d 712, 286 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4897

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 712 (In re the Claim of Fahy) 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 Fahy, 29 A.D.2d 712, 286 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying him from receiving benefits effective June 14, 1966 on the ground that he lost his employment through misconduct (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 3) and holding additionally that his benefits were forfeited for 20 effective days because of a willful false statement made to obtain benefits (Labor Law, § 594). The board has found that claimant’s discharge was precipitated by his being intoxicated during employment and that considering his position as an armed bank guard such action constituted misconduct. Such determinations are factual, and where as here there is only a dispute as to factual issues and the board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence it must be affirmed by this court (Labor Law, § 623; e.g., Matter of Poveda [Gatherwood], 28 A D 2d 781). Similarly, the question of whether claimant’s statement that he lost his job due to “illness ” amounted to a willful misrepresentation is factual, and on the instant record we find no basis to disturb the board’s resolution of this issue either, particularly, since claimant was not in fact hospitalized until some two months after his discharge and one month after he had turned in his uniform (e.g., Matter of Soroka [Gatherwood], 24 A D 2d 920). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying him from receiving benefits effective June 14, 1966 on the ground that he lost his employment through misconduct (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 3) and holding additionally that his benefits were forfeited for 20 effective days because of a willful false statement made to obtain benefits (Labor Law, § 594). The board has found that claimant’s discharge was precipitated by his being intoxicated during employment and that considering his position as an armed bank guard such action constituted misconduct. Such determinations are factual, and where as here there is only a dispute as to factual issues and the board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence it must be affirmed by this court (Labor Law, § 623; e.g., Matter of Poveda [Gatherwood], 28 A D 2d 781). Similarly, the question of whether claimant’s statement that he lost his job due to “illness ” amounted to a willful misrepresentation is factual, and on the instant record we find no basis to disturb the board’s resolution of this issue either, particularly, since claimant was not in fact hospitalized until some two months after his discharge and one month after he had turned in his uniform (e.g., Matter of Soroka [Gatherwood], 24 A D 2d 920). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 712, 286 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-fahy-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack