In re the Claim of Maloney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Maloney

29 A.D.2d 592, 285 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2768

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 592 (In re the Claim of Maloney) 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 Maloney, 29 A.D.2d 592, 285 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2768 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying claimant from benefits effective February 20, 1967 on the ground of unavailability for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2). The question as to whether a claimant in a given case has been sufficiently diligent in his efforts to secure employment to satisfy the statutory requirement of availability is clearly factual, and thus if the • board’s determination is premised on substantial evidence, it must be sustained (e.g., Matter of Knohloch [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 765). On the instant record we cannot say that the board could not decide that claimant’s attempts to obtain employment were not adequate, particularly in view of his self-imposed limitation as to method of travel to work. The fact that the Referee found availability at a subsequent time obviously is not germane to the decision as to the period here involved. Nor can we find any merit in claimant’s objection that he was denied due process of law at the hearing. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in a memorandum by Reynolds, J.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying claimant from benefits effective February 20, 1967 on the ground of unavailability for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2). The question as to whether a claimant in a given case has been sufficiently diligent in his efforts to secure employment to satisfy the statutory requirement of availability is clearly factual, and thus if the • board’s determination is premised on substantial evidence, it must be sustained (e.g., Matter of Knohloch [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 765). On the instant record we cannot say that the board could not decide that claimant’s attempts to obtain employment were not adequate, particularly in view of his self-imposed limitation as to method of travel to work. The fact that the Referee found availability at a subsequent time obviously is not germane to the decision as to the period here involved. Nor can we find any merit in claimant’s objection that he was denied due process of law at the hearing. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in a memorandum by Reynolds, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 592, 285 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-maloney-nyappdiv-1967.