In re the Claim of Falco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Falco

226 A.D.2d 878, 640 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3683

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

DecidedApril 11, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 878 (In re the Claim of Falco) 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 Falco, 226 A.D.2d 878, 640 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 16, 1994, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he failed to comply with registration requirements.

After becoming unemployed in February 1991, claimant filed an original claim for unemployment insurance benefits which expired in February 1992. He became unemployed again in June 1992 and allegedly, on June 17, 1992, went to the local unemployment insurance office to file a claim. He did not do so because, according to claimant, an information clerk incorrectly advised him that his benefits were exhausted. Claimant again filed an original claim for benefits on November 2, 1992. This claim was valid as of November 5, 1992, however, it was held that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits for the period between June 17, 1992 and November 1, 1992 due to his failure to comply with registration requirements. Claimant requested a hearing to challenge this determination.

At the hearing, claimant testified that the clerk who gave him the erroneous advice in June 1992 was an oriental woman with curly hair and glasses. A representative of the local office testified that no woman fitting that description worked at the local office during the relevant time period. He further testified that local office procedure does not allow information clerks to make decisions on new claims as they are only supposed to give claimants forms and instructions on how to fill them out. This testimony raised questions of credibility which were for the Board to resolve. Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of benefits to claimant because he failed to comply with registration requirements (see, Matter of Terranova [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 847).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, 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 November 16, 1994, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he failed to comply with registration requirements.

After becoming unemployed in February 1991, claimant filed an original claim for unemployment insurance benefits which expired in February 1992. He became unemployed again in June 1992 and allegedly, on June 17, 1992, went to the local unemployment insurance office to file a claim. He did not do so because, according to claimant, an information clerk incorrectly advised him that his benefits were exhausted. Claimant again filed an original claim for benefits on November 2, 1992. This claim was valid as of November 5, 1992, however, it was held that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits for the period between June 17, 1992 and November 1, 1992 due to his failure to comply with registration requirements. Claimant requested a hearing to challenge this determination.

At the hearing, claimant testified that the clerk who gave him the erroneous advice in June 1992 was an oriental woman with curly hair and glasses. A representative of the local office testified that no woman fitting that description worked at the local office during the relevant time period. He further testified that local office procedure does not allow information clerks to make decisions on new claims as they are only supposed to give claimants forms and instructions on how to fill them out. This testimony raised questions of credibility which were for the Board to resolve. Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of benefits to claimant because he failed to comply with registration requirements (see, Matter of Terranova [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 847).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 878, 640 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-falco-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack