In re the Claim of McGonagle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of McGonagle

216 A.D.2d 621, 627 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5865

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

DecidedJune 1, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 621 (In re the Claim of McGonagle) 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 McGonagle, 216 A.D.2d 621, 627 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 5, 1994, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not available for employment.

Claimant, an electrician who lived in New York City, was found ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits between November 25, 1991 and February 23, 1992 because, during that time period, he was away from his usual residence caring for his fiance’s father in Otsego County. The record reveals that, in addition to rendering personal services to his fiance’s ailing father, claimant performed household cleaning and farm chores. Moreover, claimant returned to New York City only on a few brief occasions and did not seek employment in the Otsego County area. Under these circumstances, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was not available for employment.

Cardona, P. J., White, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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 January 5, 1994, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not available for employment.

Claimant, an electrician who lived in New York City, was found ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits between November 25, 1991 and February 23, 1992 because, during that time period, he was away from his usual residence caring for his fiance’s father in Otsego County. The record reveals that, in addition to rendering personal services to his fiance’s ailing father, claimant performed household cleaning and farm chores. Moreover, claimant returned to New York City only on a few brief occasions and did not seek employment in the Otsego County area. Under these circumstances, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was not available for employment.

Cardona, P. J., White, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 621, 627 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-mcgonagle-nyappdiv-1995.