In re the Claim of Huff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Huff

222 A.D.2d 919, 635 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13349

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 919 (In re the Claim of Huff) 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 Huff, 222 A.D.2d 919, 635 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 22, 1994, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he had a reasonable assurance of continued employment.

Claimant, a teacher’s aide for the Buffalo Board of Education, was laid off during the summer of 1993, but instructed to return to work in September 1993. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied claimant’s application for unemploy[920]*920ment insurance benefits on the basis that he was given a reasonable assurance of continued employment. Inasmuch as claimant does not dispute that he was advised to return to work in September 1993, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Bicjan [New York City Bd. of Educ. — Sweeney], 219 AD2d 751; Matter of Alexander, 136 AD2d 788).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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 July 22, 1994, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he had a reasonable assurance of continued employment.

Claimant, a teacher’s aide for the Buffalo Board of Education, was laid off during the summer of 1993, but instructed to return to work in September 1993. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied claimant’s application for unemploy[920]*920ment insurance benefits on the basis that he was given a reasonable assurance of continued employment. Inasmuch as claimant does not dispute that he was advised to return to work in September 1993, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Bicjan [New York City Bd. of Educ. — Sweeney], 219 AD2d 751; Matter of Alexander, 136 AD2d 788).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 919, 635 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-huff-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack