In re the Claim of Schierman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Schierman

31 A.D.2d 672, 295 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2688

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 672 (In re the Claim of Schierman) 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 Schierman, 31 A.D.2d 672, 295 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2688 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

[673]*673Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 19, 1968, disqualifying claimant from unemployment insurance benefits effective July 17 to July 23, 1967 and effective July 31, 1967 on the ground that she was unavailable for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2). Claimant’s position as a legal stenographer was terminated on May 12, 1967 when the attorney for whom she had worked resigned and was not replaced. An original claim was filed effective May 15, 1967 and she received benefits through July 16, 1967. During the periods in question, claimant was pregnant with an expected date of confinement of October 11, 1967. Claimant’s efforts to seek secretarial employment allegedly consisted of visiting Manhattan regularly in search of work, reading the want ads and following up leads given to her by friends. The Referee and the board found that claimant had failed to establish that she had made a diligent search for employment. Her documented personal employer contacts were limited to one or at most two during any given week. Despite the fact that she was unemployed since the middle of May and interested in temporary secretarial work, her reported contacts with agencies dealing with temporary office services did not occur until the latter part of August. Whether in a given case a claimant’s efforts to secure employment are sufficiently diligent to satisfy the statutory requirement of availability is a question of fact to he determined by the board and when, as here, that determination is rendered upon substantial evidence, it must be sustained (Matter of Knobloch [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 765). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, 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.

[673]*673Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 19, 1968, disqualifying claimant from unemployment insurance benefits effective July 17 to July 23, 1967 and effective July 31, 1967 on the ground that she was unavailable for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2). Claimant’s position as a legal stenographer was terminated on May 12, 1967 when the attorney for whom she had worked resigned and was not replaced. An original claim was filed effective May 15, 1967 and she received benefits through July 16, 1967. During the periods in question, claimant was pregnant with an expected date of confinement of October 11, 1967. Claimant’s efforts to seek secretarial employment allegedly consisted of visiting Manhattan regularly in search of work, reading the want ads and following up leads given to her by friends. The Referee and the board found that claimant had failed to establish that she had made a diligent search for employment. Her documented personal employer contacts were limited to one or at most two during any given week. Despite the fact that she was unemployed since the middle of May and interested in temporary secretarial work, her reported contacts with agencies dealing with temporary office services did not occur until the latter part of August. Whether in a given case a claimant’s efforts to secure employment are sufficiently diligent to satisfy the statutory requirement of availability is a question of fact to he determined by the board and when, as here, that determination is rendered upon substantial evidence, it must be sustained (Matter of Knobloch [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 765). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 672, 295 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-schierman-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack