In re the Claim of Musco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Musco

27 A.D.2d 676, 276 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5087

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 676 (In re the Claim of Musco) 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 Musco, 27 A.D.2d 676, 276 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits on the ground that she was not available for employment. Claimant worked as a secretary for a life insurance company for approximately four and one half years. Her employment was terminated in accordance with company policy when she was approximately six months pregnant. Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits and was ruled ineligible in that her attempts -to find employment were merely a pro forma compliance with the statutory requirements and she was in fact not available for employment during the period in question. There is evidence concerning claimant’s lack of job seeking records, her use primarily of telephone contacts and her limiting herself to one locality within a large metropolitan area. This is a factual issue which is for the board to determine. [677]*677We cannot say as a matter of law that the board could not find as it did upon this record. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur with Auldsi, J.

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

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits on the ground that she was not available for employment. Claimant worked as a secretary for a life insurance company for approximately four and one half years. Her employment was terminated in accordance with company policy when she was approximately six months pregnant. Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits and was ruled ineligible in that her attempts -to find employment were merely a pro forma compliance with the statutory requirements and she was in fact not available for employment during the period in question. There is evidence concerning claimant’s lack of job seeking records, her use primarily of telephone contacts and her limiting herself to one locality within a large metropolitan area. This is a factual issue which is for the board to determine. [677]*677We cannot say as a matter of law that the board could not find as it did upon this record. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur with Auldsi, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 676, 276 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-musco-nyappdiv-1967.