In re the Claim of McNamara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of McNamara

33 A.D.2d 610, 304 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3035

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 610 (In re the Claim of McNamara) 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 McNamara, 33 A.D.2d 610, 304 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3035 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Cooke, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March.27, 1969, disqualifying claimant from unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she was not available for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2). There was proof indicating: that for the month and-a half from [611]*611the time claimant filed for benefits to the date of the hearing claimant made only five job efforts, all in her immediate neighborhood; that claimant saw some advertisements in one newspaper but the positions listed were not satisfactory as to salary; that she bought another paper only once; that she did not intensify her efforts to find employment because she was awaiting the results of the Referee’s hearing; that she did not apply for re-employment though told on her exit interview that she could do so; and that, although she had worked as a check processor for the Federal Reserve Bank, she did not apply for employment at any bank. Whether a person is available for employment is a question of fact and, since the board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, it must be upheld (Matter of Lunney ’ [Catherwood], 32 A D 2d 864; Matter of Bass [Catherwood], 31 A D 2d 573; Matter of Ciganek [Catherwood], 30 A D 2d 607). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.

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

Cooke, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March.27, 1969, disqualifying claimant from unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she was not available for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2). There was proof indicating: that for the month and-a half from [611]*611the time claimant filed for benefits to the date of the hearing claimant made only five job efforts, all in her immediate neighborhood; that claimant saw some advertisements in one newspaper but the positions listed were not satisfactory as to salary; that she bought another paper only once; that she did not intensify her efforts to find employment because she was awaiting the results of the Referee’s hearing; that she did not apply for re-employment though told on her exit interview that she could do so; and that, although she had worked as a check processor for the Federal Reserve Bank, she did not apply for employment at any bank. Whether a person is available for employment is a question of fact and, since the board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, it must be upheld (Matter of Lunney ’ [Catherwood], 32 A D 2d 864; Matter of Bass [Catherwood], 31 A D 2d 573; Matter of Ciganek [Catherwood], 30 A D 2d 607). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 610, 304 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-mcnamara-nyappdiv-1969.