In re the Claim of Pokorny

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Pokorny

216 A.D.2d 651, 627 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6166

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

DecidedJune 8, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 651 (In re the Claim of Pokorny) 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 Pokorny, 216 A.D.2d 651, 627 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6166 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 25,1994, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim.

Claimant, a car cleaner for the New York City Transit Authority, was deemed ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he only worked four weeks during the applicable base period. Upon review of the record, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that claimant’s failure to work a sufficient number of weeks in covered employment precluded him from filing a valid original claim. Accordingly, the Board’s decision must be upheld.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, 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 May 25,1994, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim.

Claimant, a car cleaner for the New York City Transit Authority, was deemed ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he only worked four weeks during the applicable base period. Upon review of the record, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that claimant’s failure to work a sufficient number of weeks in covered employment precluded him from filing a valid original claim. Accordingly, the Board’s decision must be upheld.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 651, 627 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-pokorny-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack