In re the Claim of Granich

New York Court of Appeals

In re the Claim of Granich

387 N.E.2d 609, 46 N.Y.2d 871, 414 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1825

DecidedFebruary 8, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 387 N.E.2d 609 (In re the Claim of Granich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals 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 Granich, 387 N.E.2d 609, 46 N.Y.2d 871, 414 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1825 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

There is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the determination of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, and its determination is not erroneous as a matter of law. The proof submitted supports the conclusion that the weeks during the company layoff in the last months of 1975 unilaterally and arbitrarily allotted by the employer as vacation were not "time designated for vacation purposes in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement or the employment contract or by the employer and the claimant, his union, or his representative” within the contemplation of the first sentence of paragraph (b) of subdivision 3 of section 591 of the Labor Law. Indeed, section 7 of article 11 of the basic collective bargaining agreement expressly provides: "In exercising its right to allot vacation periods, the Company will not require any employee who is on layoff to take his vacation during periods of plant shutdown or curtailment of operations.”

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

There is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the determination of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, and its determination is not erroneous as a matter of law. The proof submitted supports the conclusion that the weeks during the company layoff in the last months of 1975 unilaterally and arbitrarily allotted by the employer as vacation were not "time designated for vacation purposes in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement or the employment contract or by the employer and the claimant, his union, or his representative” within the contemplation of the first sentence of paragraph (b) of subdivision 3 of section 591 of the Labor Law. Indeed, section 7 of article 11 of the basic collective bargaining agreement expressly provides: "In exercising its right to allot vacation periods, the Company will not require any employee who is on layoff to take his vacation during periods of plant shutdown or curtailment of operations.”

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 N.E.2d 609, 46 N.Y.2d 871, 414 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-granich-ny-1979.