In Re the Claim of Goldstein

New York Court of Appeals

In Re the Claim of Goldstein

60 N.E.2d 132, 293 N.Y. 927, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 2333

New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 30, 1944·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order of Appellate Division reversed, with costs in this court, and decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed upon the sole ground, and as a matter of law, that Monday, January 11, 1943, the date on which appellant concededly reported, was a proper date for such reporting, under Rule jU.I' 18 — 41, as contended in his behalf by his counsel and as conceded by the Attorney-General in behalf of the Commis - sioneir, who consents to this disposition of the case. We pass on nd other question. Those which were considered below were in fact not presented by the record and cannot be considered here. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thaoher, JJ.

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

Order of Appellate Division reversed, with costs in this court, and decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed upon the sole ground, and as a matter of law, that Monday, January 11, 1943, the date on which appellant concededly reported, was a proper date for such reporting, under Rule jU.I' 18 — 41, as contended in his behalf by his counsel and as conceded by the Attorney-General in behalf of the Commis - sioneir, who consents to this disposition of the case. We pass on nd other question. Those which were considered below were in fact not presented by the record and cannot be considered here. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thaoher, JJ.

In Re the Claim of Goldstein, 60 N.E.2d 132, 293 N.Y. 927, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 2333 (N.Y. 1944).

Pincite

60 N.E.2d 132 (In Re the Claim of Goldstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related