In re the Claim of Reitman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Reitman

27 A.D.2d 678, 275 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5091

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 678 (In re the Claim of Reitman) 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 Reitman, 27 A.D.2d 678, 275 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5091 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determining that claimant was ineligible for benefits effective May 16, 1966 for lack of total unemployment (Labor Law, § 522). Claimant, a butcher with 35 years experience, was associated with the employer, a meat packaging enterprise from its inception in 1962 until May 10, 1966 when the business “temporarily” suspended operation due to a fire which destroyed the premises on which the business was located. The record reveals that claimant’s wife, who worked full time for the Board of Education, was the sole stockholder but was not employed by the business, that rather claimant as president, manager and the sole possessor of authority to draw checks actually ran the enterprise and that claimant, despite efforts to find other employment, intended to return to his position with the corporation as soon as its business premises were rebuilt by the owner. Furthermore, there is evidence that he continued his position and in fact drew checks on behalf of the corporation after the date of the fire. The construction and application given to the term “ total unemployment ” by the board must be upheld unless it can “ be said to lack rational basis or to be arbitrary or capricious ” (Matter of Newman [Catherwood], 24 A D 2d 1042). On the present record such is clearly not the ease (Matter of Vasquenz [Catherwood], 26 A D 2d 859): Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur with Reynolds, J.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determining that claimant was ineligible for benefits effective May 16, 1966 for lack of total unemployment (Labor Law, § 522). Claimant, a butcher with 35 years experience, was associated with the employer, a meat packaging enterprise from its inception in 1962 until May 10, 1966 when the business “temporarily” suspended operation due to a fire which destroyed the premises on which the business was located. The record reveals that claimant’s wife, who worked full time for the Board of Education, was the sole stockholder but was not employed by the business, that rather claimant as president, manager and the sole possessor of authority to draw checks actually ran the enterprise and that claimant, despite efforts to find other employment, intended to return to his position with the corporation as soon as its business premises were rebuilt by the owner. Furthermore, there is evidence that he continued his position and in fact drew checks on behalf of the corporation after the date of the fire. The construction and application given to the term “ total unemployment ” by the board must be upheld unless it can “ be said to lack rational basis or to be arbitrary or capricious ” (Matter of Newman [Catherwood], 24 A D 2d 1042). On the present record such is clearly not the ease (Matter of Vasquenz [Catherwood], 26 A D 2d 859): Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur with Reynolds, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 678, 275 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-reitman-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack