In re the Claim of Lubarsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Lubarsky

52 A.D.2d 695, 382 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12369

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

DecidedApril 22, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 695 (In re the Claim of Lubarsky) 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 Lubarsky, 52 A.D.2d 695, 382 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 7, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits upon the ground she was unavailable for employment. Availability for employment is a question of fact for resolution by the board and if its findings thereon are supported by substantial evidence the determination must be [696]*696sustained (Matter of Viscardi [Levine], 50 AD2d 703). The same rule applies in reviewing the issue of whether a claimant’s efforts to secure employment satisfy the statutory requirements (Matter of Katz [Levine], 51 AD2d 613). The record contains substantial evidence supporting the board’s determination and, accordingly, we must affirm it. Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, 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 7, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits upon the ground she was unavailable for employment. Availability for employment is a question of fact for resolution by the board and if its findings thereon are supported by substantial evidence the determination must be [696]*696sustained (Matter of Viscardi [Levine], 50 AD2d 703). The same rule applies in reviewing the issue of whether a claimant’s efforts to secure employment satisfy the statutory requirements (Matter of Katz [Levine], 51 AD2d 613). The record contains substantial evidence supporting the board’s determination and, accordingly, we must affirm it. Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 695, 382 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-lubarsky-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack