In re the Claim of Lepicier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Lepicier

51 A.D.2d 620, 377 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10956

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 1976·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 18, 1974, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits because she was not available for employment within the meaning of subdivision 2 of section 591 of the Labor Law. Claimant, employed on Long Island as a bookkeeper, lost her job under nondisqualifying conditions and soon thereafter moved with her husband, who had just retired, to Hartwick, New York. The board found that claimant’s efforts toward employment were insufficient and that claimant did not demonstrate her availability within the meaning of the statute. These factual findings were solely within the province of the board and, since they were supported by substantial evidence, they may not be disturbed (Matter of Bennett [Catherwood] 33 AD2d 946). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Koreman and Main, JJ., concur.

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

from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 18, 1974, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits because she was not available for employment within the meaning of subdivision 2 of section 591 of the Labor Law. Claimant, employed on Long Island as a bookkeeper, lost her job under nondisqualifying conditions and soon thereafter moved with her husband, who had just retired, to Hartwick, New York. The board found that claimant’s efforts toward employment were insufficient and that claimant did not demonstrate her availability within the meaning of the statute. These factual findings were solely within the province of the board and, since they were supported by substantial evidence, they may not be disturbed (Matter of Bennett [Catherwood] 33 AD2d 946). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Koreman and Main, JJ., concur.

In re the Claim of Lepicier, 51 A.D.2d 620, 377 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

51 A.D.2d 620 (In re the Claim of Lepicier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related