In re the Claim of Postol

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Postol

25 A.D.2d 919, 270 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4159

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

DecidedMay 20, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 919 (In re the Claim of Postol) 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 Postol, 25 A.D.2d 919, 270 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4159 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Taylor, J.

Claimant appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying her benefits on the ground that she was not available for employment during the period in question. Claimant lost her emplo3'ment as a bookkeeper in the City of New York on June 26, 1964 and thereafter took up her residence at Pleasant Mount, Pennsylvania, a small community offering limited employment opportunities. The board found that claimant’s subsequent search for employment, other than that comprising the perusal of help-wanted advertisements in local newspapers, was in general confined to not more than one day a week and was of such random character as to provide no basis for the belief that it would be productive of employment. It concluded that her efforts to find work were “ meager ”. “ Whether a person is available for employment during a specific period is a question of fact to be determined by the Referee and the Appeal Board.” (Matter of Dunn [Corsi], 1 A D 2d 722.) We 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 Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Taylor, J.

Claimant appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying her benefits on the ground that she was not available for employment during the period in question. Claimant lost her emplo3'ment as a bookkeeper in the City of New York on June 26, 1964 and thereafter took up her residence at Pleasant Mount, Pennsylvania, a small community offering limited employment opportunities. The board found that claimant’s subsequent search for employment, other than that comprising the perusal of help-wanted advertisements in local newspapers, was in general confined to not more than one day a week and was of such random character as to provide no basis for the belief that it would be productive of employment. It concluded that her efforts to find work were “ meager ”. “ Whether a person is available for employment during a specific period is a question of fact to be determined by the Referee and the Appeal Board.” (Matter of Dunn [Corsi], 1 A D 2d 722.) We 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 Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 919, 270 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-postol-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack