In re the Claim of Haskins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Haskins

81 A.D.2d 997, 441 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11741

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

DecidedMay 28, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.2d 997 (In re the Claim of Haskins) 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 Haskins, 81 A.D.2d 997, 441 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11741 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 27, 1980, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits because she was not totally unemployed, charging her with recoverable over-payments and holding that she willfully made false statements to obtain benefits for which a forefeiture of 204 effective days was imposed. The record contains substantial evidence to support the findings that claimant was employed during the periods in question (Labor Law, §§522, 591, subd 1), and willfully made false statements (see Matter of Rickman [Ross], 67 AD2d 746). Factual determinations are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the board and if supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed (Matter of Boyd, [Ross], 59 AD2d 804; Matter of De Vivo [Levine], 51 AD2d 619). Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Weiss, 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 October 27, 1980, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits because she was not totally unemployed, charging her with recoverable over-payments and holding that she willfully made false statements to obtain benefits for which a forefeiture of 204 effective days was imposed. The record contains substantial evidence to support the findings that claimant was employed during the periods in question (Labor Law, §§522, 591, subd 1), and willfully made false statements (see Matter of Rickman [Ross], 67 AD2d 746). Factual determinations are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the board and if supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed (Matter of Boyd, [Ross], 59 AD2d 804; Matter of De Vivo [Levine], 51 AD2d 619). Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 997, 441 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-haskins-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack