In re the Claim of Gaede

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Gaede

9 A.D.2d 588, 189 N.Y.S.2d 524, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7453

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

DecidedAugust 13, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 9 A.D.2d 588 (In re the Claim of Gaede) 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 Gaede, 9 A.D.2d 588, 189 N.Y.S.2d 524, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which held claimant ineligible [589]*589for unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she was not available for employment within the meaning of the statute prohibiting payment of benefits to any claimant “who is not ready, willing and able to work in his usual employment ” (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2). Claimant stated her occupation to be that of hat check girl with 12 years experience in New York City. There was substantial evidence to support the findings that she went to California to visit her parents in an area in which there was no opportunity for employment in her occupation and that her alleged efforts to find such employment in Los Angeles, some 60 miles distant from her temporary residence, were but “token in nature”. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, J. P., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

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 which held claimant ineligible [589]*589for unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she was not available for employment within the meaning of the statute prohibiting payment of benefits to any claimant “who is not ready, willing and able to work in his usual employment ” (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2). Claimant stated her occupation to be that of hat check girl with 12 years experience in New York City. There was substantial evidence to support the findings that she went to California to visit her parents in an area in which there was no opportunity for employment in her occupation and that her alleged efforts to find such employment in Los Angeles, some 60 miles distant from her temporary residence, were but “token in nature”. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, J. P., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.2d 588, 189 N.Y.S.2d 524, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-gaede-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack