In re the Claim of Fico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Fico

29 A.D.2d 1011, 289 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4132

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

DecidedApril 29, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 1011 (In re the Claim of Fico) 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 Fico, 29 A.D.2d 1011, 289 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which held claimant ineligible for benefits on the ground that she was unavailable for employment. Claimant’s physician, upon diagnosis of claimant’s condition of anxiety neurosis and vertigo, reported that she could not travel by bus or subway. The board found: “ Claimant’s restrictions and limitations which prevent her from leaving her neighborhood taken together with claimant’s opportunities for work in such neighborhood for which she is reasonably qualified by her previous training and experience have so severely and substantially reduced her prospects of employment as to render her ineligible because of unavailability for employment.” Whether claimant’s enforced restriction to so limited an area had the practical effect of rendering her unavailable for employment was a factual question for the board’s determination. Upon this record it cannot reasonably be said that the evidence supportive of the board’s finding was insubstantial or that the board’s inferences from it were arbitrary or capricious; and consequently we are without authority to overturn the board’s decision. We have affirmed similar disqualifications in cases in which claimants were limited to small, local areas because transportation to places offering more nearly normal employment opportunities was, for one reason or another, unavailable. (See, e.g., Matter of Daniels [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 601; Matter of Langer [Catherwood], 11 A D 2d 560; Matter of Posselt [hubin], 3 A D 2d 881.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which held claimant ineligible for benefits on the ground that she was unavailable for employment. Claimant’s physician, upon diagnosis of claimant’s condition of anxiety neurosis and vertigo, reported that she could not travel by bus or subway. The board found: “ Claimant’s restrictions and limitations which prevent her from leaving her neighborhood taken together with claimant’s opportunities for work in such neighborhood for which she is reasonably qualified by her previous training and experience have so severely and substantially reduced her prospects of employment as to render her ineligible because of unavailability for employment.” Whether claimant’s enforced restriction to so limited an area had the practical effect of rendering her unavailable for employment was a factual question for the board’s determination. Upon this record it cannot reasonably be said that the evidence supportive of the board’s finding was insubstantial or that the board’s inferences from it were arbitrary or capricious; and consequently we are without authority to overturn the board’s decision. We have affirmed similar disqualifications in cases in which claimants were limited to small, local areas because transportation to places offering more nearly normal employment opportunities was, for one reason or another, unavailable. (See, e.g., Matter of Daniels [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 601; Matter of Langer [Catherwood], 11 A D 2d 560; Matter of Posselt [hubin], 3 A D 2d 881.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 1011, 289 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-fico-nyappdiv-1968.