In re the Claim of Mindock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Mindock

50 A.D.2d 658, 374 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12490

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 658 (In re the Claim of Mindock) 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 Mindock, 50 A.D.2d 658, 374 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 28, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee holding the claimant ineligible to receive benefits effective September 23, 1974 through September 24, 1974 on the ground that he was not available for employment. Substantial evidence [659]*659supports the factual finding of the board that claimant traveled to Iowa on personal business and remained there for two days, and thus missed his scheduled reporting date to his Illinois unemployment office on September 24, 1974. During this period, the board could find that claimant failed to demonstrate a sincere and diligent search for employment and, therefore, was not available for employment (Matter of Forsyth [Catherwood], 31 AD2d 707). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Koreman and Main, 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 March 28, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee holding the claimant ineligible to receive benefits effective September 23, 1974 through September 24, 1974 on the ground that he was not available for employment. Substantial evidence [659]*659supports the factual finding of the board that claimant traveled to Iowa on personal business and remained there for two days, and thus missed his scheduled reporting date to his Illinois unemployment office on September 24, 1974. During this period, the board could find that claimant failed to demonstrate a sincere and diligent search for employment and, therefore, was not available for employment (Matter of Forsyth [Catherwood], 31 AD2d 707). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Koreman and Main, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 658, 374 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-mindock-nyappdiv-1975.