In re the Claim of Gottschall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Gottschall

27 A.D.2d 777, 277 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4902

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 777 (In re the Claim of Gottschall) 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 Gottschall, 27 A.D.2d 777, 277 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits effective for the statutory week ending April 4, 1965 on the grounds that he was not totally unemployed (Labor Law, § 522); charging him with an overpayment of $30 ruled to be recoverable; and holding that he willfully misrepresented to obtain benefits for which a forfeiture of 24 effective days was imposed (Labor Law, § 594). There is no question that claimant for the week March 29 through April 4, 1965 certified that he was totally unemployed for four days when in fact he was employed. His only explanation was that due to personal difficulties he made a “mistake”. This explanation was, of course, only a factor for the board’s evaluation in determining its disposition of the ease and we cannot say, as a matter of law, that it, on the instant record, could not reach the decision rendered (Matter of Clemente [Catherwood], 27 A D 2d 676). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in a memorandum decision by Reynolds, J.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits effective for the statutory week ending April 4, 1965 on the grounds that he was not totally unemployed (Labor Law, § 522); charging him with an overpayment of $30 ruled to be recoverable; and holding that he willfully misrepresented to obtain benefits for which a forfeiture of 24 effective days was imposed (Labor Law, § 594). There is no question that claimant for the week March 29 through April 4, 1965 certified that he was totally unemployed for four days when in fact he was employed. His only explanation was that due to personal difficulties he made a “mistake”. This explanation was, of course, only a factor for the board’s evaluation in determining its disposition of the ease and we cannot say, as a matter of law, that it, on the instant record, could not reach the decision rendered (Matter of Clemente [Catherwood], 27 A D 2d 676). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in a memorandum decision by Reynolds, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 777, 277 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-gottschall-nyappdiv-1967.