In re the Claim of Lieber

387 N.E.2d 607, 46 N.Y.2d 867, 414 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1823
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 8, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 387 N.E.2d 607 (In re the Claim of Lieber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals 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 Lieber, 387 N.E.2d 607, 46 N.Y.2d 867, 414 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1823 (N.Y. 1979).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Although claimant contends that she was denied a fair hearing by the referee’s refusal to consider a physician’s report of an injury which she alleges was inflicted by her employer, we conclude that exclusion of such evidence, helpful as it might have been to corroborate claimant’s allegation of a physical assault upon her person, did not constitute a denial of due process. The record indicates that claimant was afforded a sufficient opportunity to present proof in support of her claim, and any probative value which the physician’s report may have had seems highly speculative in light of the [869]*869claimant’s voluntary request to return to work only one hour after leaving her employment.

As to claimant’s assertion that the referee gave undue weight to irrelevant considerations in reaching his findings, we note that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and the referees "shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence or by technical or formal rules of procedure but may conduct the hearings and appeals in such manner as to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties.” (Labor Law, § 622, subd 2.)

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Matter of Nottage (Commissioner of Labor)
2022 NY Slip Op 02476 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
MatterofWeeden[Commr.ofLabor]
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
In re the Claim of Weeden
121 A.D.3d 1138 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re the Claim of McInerney
288 A.D.2d 549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In Re Roberts Real Estate, Inc.
603 N.E.2d 242 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
387 N.E.2d 607, 46 N.Y.2d 867, 414 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-lieber-ny-1979.