In re the Claim of Guilshan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Guilshan

32 A.D.2d 707, 300 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3917

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

DecidedMay 21, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 707 (In re the Claim of Guilshan) 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 Guilshan, 32 A.D.2d 707, 300 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by

the Court. Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 2, 1967, which determined that claimant was ineligible for benefits effective July 12, 1967 on the ground that he was unavailable for employment. Claimant, a foreign collection clerk, lost his job when it was determined by his employer that he was over its mandatory retirement age of 65. Claimant confined his job-seeking efforts to financial and brokerage institutions, although he was aware of the fact that most of these institutions had the same mandatory retirement rule, and failed to respond to advertisements for clerical help by other types of establishments “ because it’s not exactly the work I been doing” and “my experience is in foreign collection.” “Whether a claimant’s efforts to secure employment are sufficiently diligent to satisfy the requirement of availability is a question of fact to be determined by the board and its determination, if rendered upon substantial evidence must be sustained.” (Matter of Knobloch [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 765, 766.) The record fully substantiates the board’s finding that the claimant failed to seek employment with reasonable diligence and failed to demonstrate his availability for employment. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.

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

Memorandum by

the Court. Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 2, 1967, which determined that claimant was ineligible for benefits effective July 12, 1967 on the ground that he was unavailable for employment. Claimant, a foreign collection clerk, lost his job when it was determined by his employer that he was over its mandatory retirement age of 65. Claimant confined his job-seeking efforts to financial and brokerage institutions, although he was aware of the fact that most of these institutions had the same mandatory retirement rule, and failed to respond to advertisements for clerical help by other types of establishments “ because it’s not exactly the work I been doing” and “my experience is in foreign collection.” “Whether a claimant’s efforts to secure employment are sufficiently diligent to satisfy the requirement of availability is a question of fact to be determined by the board and its determination, if rendered upon substantial evidence must be sustained.” (Matter of Knobloch [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 765, 766.) The record fully substantiates the board’s finding that the claimant failed to seek employment with reasonable diligence and failed to demonstrate his availability for employment. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 707, 300 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-guilshan-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack