In re the Claim of Gottlieb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Gottlieb

50 A.D.2d 1031, 376 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12032

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 1031 (In re the Claim of Gottlieb) 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 Gottlieb, 50 A.D.2d 1031, 376 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12032 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 7, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible for benefits on the ground that she was not available for employment. The denial of fringe [1032]*1032benefits for long-term temporary assignments did not justify claimant’s restriction to assignments of one month’s duration. (See Matter of Shanley [CatherwoodJ 27 AD2d 496.) A restriction of employment to areas in which she would accept work was also a disqualifying factor. (Matter of Daniels [CatherwoodJ, 28 AD2d 601.) The record contains substantial evidence which supports the board’s determination that claimant did not establish that she was available for employment, and it must, therefore, be sustained. Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, 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 July 7, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible for benefits on the ground that she was not available for employment. The denial of fringe [1032]*1032benefits for long-term temporary assignments did not justify claimant’s restriction to assignments of one month’s duration. (See Matter of Shanley [CatherwoodJ 27 AD2d 496.) A restriction of employment to areas in which she would accept work was also a disqualifying factor. (Matter of Daniels [CatherwoodJ, 28 AD2d 601.) The record contains substantial evidence which supports the board’s determination that claimant did not establish that she was available for employment, and it must, therefore, be sustained. Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Koreman and Main, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 1031, 376 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-gottlieb-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack