In re the Claim of Herman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Herman

25 A.D.2d 473, 266 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5199

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 473 (In re the Claim of Herman) 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 Herman, 25 A.D.2d 473, 266 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Hamm, J.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Unemplojmient Insurance Appeal Board that the claimant was not available for employment and was therefore not eligible for benefits. The board found that the claimant, although admittedly wishing to work only for a temporary period, had consistently sought permanent work, that she failed to make an active and realistic search for work and that her job efforts were token in nature and did not show a genuine attachment to the labor market. “Whether a person is available for employment during a specific period is a question of fact to be determined by the referee and the Appeal Board.” (Matter of Dunn [Corsi], 1 A D 2d 722.) We may not say as a matter of law that the board could not find as it did upon this record (Labor Law, § 623). Decision affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Hamm, J.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Unemplojmient Insurance Appeal Board that the claimant was not available for employment and was therefore not eligible for benefits. The board found that the claimant, although admittedly wishing to work only for a temporary period, had consistently sought permanent work, that she failed to make an active and realistic search for work and that her job efforts were token in nature and did not show a genuine attachment to the labor market. “Whether a person is available for employment during a specific period is a question of fact to be determined by the referee and the Appeal Board.” (Matter of Dunn [Corsi], 1 A D 2d 722.) We may not say as a matter of law that the board could not find as it did upon this record (Labor Law, § 623). Decision affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 473, 266 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-herman-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack