In re the Claim of Meyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Meyer

23 A.D.2d 936, 259 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4092

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

DecidedMay 24, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 936 (In re the Claim of Meyer) 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 Meyer, 23 A.D.2d 936, 259 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4092 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Hamm, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which found that he made “ a wilful false statement ” for the purpose of obtaining benefits (Labor Law, § 594). The claimant does not dispute that he worked fo"r hours on November 25, 1963, or that by placing “ N ” in a box on a form provided, he certified that he had not worked on that day. He offered the explanation that he understood it to be unnecessary to indicate any work when he worked for less than a full day and on this appeal urges that “the charge of making a wilfully false statement was never proved or established”. As the board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, we are without authority to disturb the determination (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Jouravel [Catherwood], 13 A D 2d 863; Matter of Bailey [Catherwood], 18 A D 2d 727). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Hamm, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which found that he made “ a wilful false statement ” for the purpose of obtaining benefits (Labor Law, § 594). The claimant does not dispute that he worked fo"r hours on November 25, 1963, or that by placing “ N ” in a box on a form provided, he certified that he had not worked on that day. He offered the explanation that he understood it to be unnecessary to indicate any work when he worked for less than a full day and on this appeal urges that “the charge of making a wilfully false statement was never proved or established”. As the board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, we are without authority to disturb the determination (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Jouravel [Catherwood], 13 A D 2d 863; Matter of Bailey [Catherwood], 18 A D 2d 727). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 936, 259 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-meyer-nyappdiv-1965.