In re the Claim of Ringer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Ringer

26 A.D.2d 859, 273 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3358

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 859 (In re the Claim of Ringer) 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 Ringer, 26 A.D.2d 859, 273 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorándum by the Court. Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant by altering a date in his insurance booklet willfully made a false statement to obtain benefits by reason of which the penalty of a forfeiture of 20 effective days in reduction of future benefit rights was imposed. (Labor Law, § 594.) The circumstantial evidence clearly supported the factual finding which the board made and its determination thereof was well within its province, as was its finding that claimant’s denial of the alteration was not credible; and we are without authority to disturb these findings or the conclusion predicated upon them. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Aulisi, JJ., concur; Taylor, J., not voting.

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

Memorándum by the Court. Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant by altering a date in his insurance booklet willfully made a false statement to obtain benefits by reason of which the penalty of a forfeiture of 20 effective days in reduction of future benefit rights was imposed. (Labor Law, § 594.) The circumstantial evidence clearly supported the factual finding which the board made and its determination thereof was well within its province, as was its finding that claimant’s denial of the alteration was not credible; and we are without authority to disturb these findings or the conclusion predicated upon them. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Aulisi, JJ., concur; Taylor, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 859, 273 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-ringer-nyappdiv-1966.