In re the Claim of Lebovic

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Lebovic

29 A.D.2d 812, 286 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4647

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 812 (In re the Claim of Lebovic) 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 Lebovic, 29 A.D.2d 812, 286 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disqualified claimant from benefits upon determining, on evidence which we find substantial, that she had rendered herself unavailable for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2) by (1) limiting her search for work to that of a “home companion” (as distinguished from a “home attendant”), calling for more skills than claimant possessed, and for which work there was no great demand, and (2) refusing to return to the factory work at which she was experienced. Thus, respondent correctly argues, claimant rendered herself unavailable for employment in areas in which she was likely to obtain work, and available only in one limited area, in which she was unlikely to obtain work. The board’s factual determination was warranted. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disqualified claimant from benefits upon determining, on evidence which we find substantial, that she had rendered herself unavailable for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2) by (1) limiting her search for work to that of a “home companion” (as distinguished from a “home attendant”), calling for more skills than claimant possessed, and for which work there was no great demand, and (2) refusing to return to the factory work at which she was experienced. Thus, respondent correctly argues, claimant rendered herself unavailable for employment in areas in which she was likely to obtain work, and available only in one limited area, in which she was unlikely to obtain work. The board’s factual determination was warranted. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 812, 286 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-lebovic-nyappdiv-1968.