In re the Claim of Juris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Juris

33 A.D.2d 852, 305 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2609

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 852 (In re the Claim of Juris) 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 Juris, 33 A.D.2d 852, 305 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Cooke, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 2, 1969, which ruled claimant ineligible for benefits effective September 9, 1968 on the ground that she was not available for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2), and, also, imposed a forfeiture of four effective days as a penalty in reduction of claimant’s future benefit rights, on the ground that she willfully made false statements to obtain benefits (Labor Law, § 594). Whether a claimant’s efforts to secure employment are sufficiently diligent to satisfy the statutory requirement of availability is a question of fact and, if supported by substantial evidence, the board’s determination must be upheld (Matter of Lunney [Catherwood], 32 A D 2d 864; Matter of Guilshan [Catherwood], 32 A D 2d 707; Matter of Knobloch [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 765). Here, claimant testified that she did not look for work beginning September 9, 1968 because she was not feeling well and, in addition, had been promised a job with another employer and was waiting to hear from it. It appears, also, that she signed statements indicating that she had not sought work since said date. Claimant, in completing a form on September 10, 1968, answered negatively a question inquiring as to whether or not she had applied for social security benefits whereas, in truth and according to her own testimony, she had applied for such benefits several weeks previously and, in fact, had received two payments prior to completing the questionnaire. If a claimant certifies to a false fact knowing that it is false, the statute authorizes the forfeiture regardless of claimant’s interpretation of the ultimate effect of the false statement (Matter of Vick [Catherwood], 12 A D 2d 120; Matter of Bernstein [Corsi], 278 App. Div. 625, affd. 303 N. Y. 755). The determination of whether a misrepresentation is willful being factual and within the exclusive province of the board if supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Worms [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 1188; Matter of Clemente [Catherwood], 27 A D 2d 676), there was ample support in the instant record for the decision rendered. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.

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

Cooke, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 2, 1969, which ruled claimant ineligible for benefits effective September 9, 1968 on the ground that she was not available for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2), and, also, imposed a forfeiture of four effective days as a penalty in reduction of claimant’s future benefit rights, on the ground that she willfully made false statements to obtain benefits (Labor Law, § 594). Whether a claimant’s efforts to secure employment are sufficiently diligent to satisfy the statutory requirement of availability is a question of fact and, if supported by substantial evidence, the board’s determination must be upheld (Matter of Lunney [Catherwood], 32 A D 2d 864; Matter of Guilshan [Catherwood], 32 A D 2d 707; Matter of Knobloch [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 765). Here, claimant testified that she did not look for work beginning September 9, 1968 because she was not feeling well and, in addition, had been promised a job with another employer and was waiting to hear from it. It appears, also, that she signed statements indicating that she had not sought work since said date. Claimant, in completing a form on September 10, 1968, answered negatively a question inquiring as to whether or not she had applied for social security benefits whereas, in truth and according to her own testimony, she had applied for such benefits several weeks previously and, in fact, had received two payments prior to completing the questionnaire. If a claimant certifies to a false fact knowing that it is false, the statute authorizes the forfeiture regardless of claimant’s interpretation of the ultimate effect of the false statement (Matter of Vick [Catherwood], 12 A D 2d 120; Matter of Bernstein [Corsi], 278 App. Div. 625, affd. 303 N. Y. 755). The determination of whether a misrepresentation is willful being factual and within the exclusive province of the board if supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Worms [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 1188; Matter of Clemente [Catherwood], 27 A D 2d 676), there was ample support in the instant record for the decision rendered. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 852, 305 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-juris-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack