In re the Claim of Salpeter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Salpeter

29 A.D.2d 810, 286 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4643

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 810 (In re the Claim of Salpeter) 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 Salpeter, 29 A.D.2d 810, 286 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 15, 1967, which held that claimant willfully made false statements as to the cause of his separation from employment to obtain benefits for which a forfeiture of 20 effective days was imposed (Labor Law, § 594). The sole question before us is whether or not the record contains substantial evidence to support the board’s determination. The record reveals that claimant left his employment in the interest of protecting his health pursuant to general instructions from his physician. However, when he filed his claim for benefits he reported that he had lost his employment because of “ lack of work, no work.” Even though the claimant thereafter in an interview stated that he left for health reasons, in view of the misstatement in the initial application, the board was entitled to find a willful misstatement. The determination of whether a representation is willful depends on factual findings and is within the exclusive province of the board if supported by substantial evidence. We cannot say as a matter of law that the record contains no support for the decision rendered (see Matter of Vick [Catherwood], 12 A D 2d 120; Matter of Campbell [Catherwood], 23 A D 2d 515; Matter of Gold-wag [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 761). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.

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

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 15, 1967, which held that claimant willfully made false statements as to the cause of his separation from employment to obtain benefits for which a forfeiture of 20 effective days was imposed (Labor Law, § 594). The sole question before us is whether or not the record contains substantial evidence to support the board’s determination. The record reveals that claimant left his employment in the interest of protecting his health pursuant to general instructions from his physician. However, when he filed his claim for benefits he reported that he had lost his employment because of “ lack of work, no work.” Even though the claimant thereafter in an interview stated that he left for health reasons, in view of the misstatement in the initial application, the board was entitled to find a willful misstatement. The determination of whether a representation is willful depends on factual findings and is within the exclusive province of the board if supported by substantial evidence. We cannot say as a matter of law that the record contains no support for the decision rendered (see Matter of Vick [Catherwood], 12 A D 2d 120; Matter of Campbell [Catherwood], 23 A D 2d 515; Matter of Gold-wag [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 761). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 810, 286 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-salpeter-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack