In re the Claim of Johl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Johl

50 A.D.2d 1014, 377 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12001

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 1014 (In re the Claim of Johl) 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 Johl, 50 A.D.2d 1014, 377 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12001 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 13, 1974, which reversed the decision of a referee and sustained an initial determination of [1015]*1015the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective November 29, 1973 because, without good cause, he refused employment for which he is reasonably fitted by training and experience. The finding by the board that, without good cause, claimant refused employment for which he was reasonably fitted by training and experience is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (Matter of Hoffman [Cather-wood], 34 AD2d 871). Where a person is reasonably fitted for more than one kind of employment, he does not bring himself within the benefits provided by the statute if he refuses one kind merely because he prefers the other (.Matter of Ranno [Catherwood] 21 AD2d 721). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Koreman, Main and Larkin, 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 August 13, 1974, which reversed the decision of a referee and sustained an initial determination of [1015]*1015the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective November 29, 1973 because, without good cause, he refused employment for which he is reasonably fitted by training and experience. The finding by the board that, without good cause, claimant refused employment for which he was reasonably fitted by training and experience is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (Matter of Hoffman [Cather-wood], 34 AD2d 871). Where a person is reasonably fitted for more than one kind of employment, he does not bring himself within the benefits provided by the statute if he refuses one kind merely because he prefers the other (.Matter of Ranno [Catherwood] 21 AD2d 721). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Koreman, Main and Larkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 1014, 377 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-johl-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack