In re the Claim of Salisbury

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Salisbury

27 A.D.2d 587, 275 N.Y.S.2d 549, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2859

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 587 (In re the Claim of Salisbury) 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 Salisbury, 27 A.D.2d 587, 275 N.Y.S.2d 549, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The board found that at the time claimant was receiving benefits he was a duly elected Town Assessor for which he was compensated. The claimant contends he assumed he was not required to report the form of work since it was not a “real job”. The board determined that the work rendered by the claimant to the town constituted employment and, therefore, he was ineligible for benefits paid, which were recoverable, and that he was further subject to a forfeiture of benefits. (See Labor Law, § 594; Matter of Vick [Catherwood], 12 A D 2d 120.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Brink, JJ., concur with Herlihy, J.

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

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The board found that at the time claimant was receiving benefits he was a duly elected Town Assessor for which he was compensated. The claimant contends he assumed he was not required to report the form of work since it was not a “real job”. The board determined that the work rendered by the claimant to the town constituted employment and, therefore, he was ineligible for benefits paid, which were recoverable, and that he was further subject to a forfeiture of benefits. (See Labor Law, § 594; Matter of Vick [Catherwood], 12 A D 2d 120.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Brink, JJ., concur with Herlihy, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 587, 275 N.Y.S.2d 549, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-salisbury-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack