In re the Claim of Farrer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Farrer

50 A.D.2d 653, 374 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12481

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 13, 1975·Published

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 7, 1974, which affirmed a referee’s decision modifying the initial determination of misconduct to disqualification for voluntary separation without good cause, and holding that claimant willfully made a false statement to obtain benefits by reason of which a forfeiture of four effective days was imposed as a penalty in reduction of his future benefit rights. Claimant, a waiter, was informed his failure to be at work on Easter Sunday would result in loss of employment. He elected not to appear for personal, noncompelling reasons, and he [654] was terminated. Upon application for benefits, he stated his loss of employment was due to lack of work. The determination of these factual issues is in the sole province of the board and when, as it appears from this record, they are supported by substantial evidence, they must be affirmed (Matter of Schlags [CatherwoodJ 34 AD2d 597; Matter of Haynes [Catherwood], 30 AD2d 722). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Koreman 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 November 7, 1974, which affirmed a referee’s decision modifying the initial determination of misconduct to disqualification for voluntary separation without good cause, and holding that claimant willfully made a false statement to obtain benefits by reason of which a forfeiture of four effective days was imposed as a penalty in reduction of his future benefit rights. Claimant, a waiter, was informed his failure to be at work on Easter Sunday would result in loss of employment. He elected not to appear for personal, noncompelling reasons, and he [654] was terminated. Upon application for benefits, he stated his loss of employment was due to lack of work. The determination of these factual issues is in the sole province of the board and when, as it appears from this record, they are supported by substantial evidence, they must be affirmed (Matter of Schlags [CatherwoodJ 34 AD2d 597; Matter of Haynes [Catherwood], 30 AD2d 722). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Koreman and Main, JJ., concur.

In re the Claim of Farrer, 50 A.D.2d 653, 374 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12481 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

50 A.D.2d 653 (In re the Claim of Farrer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related