In re the Claim of Pranzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Pranzo

235 A.D.2d 897, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 534

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 897 (In re the Claim of Pranzo) 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 Pranzo, 235 A.D.2d 897, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 534 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 6, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she had insufficient weeks of covered employment in her base period. As a result, claimant was charged with an overpayment of benefits. It was ultimately found that claimant’s statements regarding the weeks she was allegedly employed were not supported by credible documentary evidence. We affirm. Issues of witness credibility and the evaluation of evidence are for determination by the Board (see, Matter of Di Maria [Ross], 52 NY2d 771, 772-773). Our review of the record leads to the conclusion that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and it will not, accordingly, be disturbed.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, 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 June 6, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she did not have sufficient weeks of covered employment to file a valid original claim.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she had insufficient weeks of covered employment in her base period. As a result, claimant was charged with an overpayment of benefits. It was ultimately found that claimant’s statements regarding the weeks she was allegedly employed were not supported by credible documentary evidence. We affirm. Issues of witness credibility and the evaluation of evidence are for determination by the Board (see, Matter of Di Maria [Ross], 52 NY2d 771, 772-773). Our review of the record leads to the conclusion that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and it will not, accordingly, be disturbed.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 897, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-pranzo-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack