In re the Claim of Sherman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Sherman

34 A.D.2d 875, 310 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4690

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

DecidedMay 26, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 875 (In re the Claim of Sherman) 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 Sherman, 34 A.D.2d 875, 310 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4690 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling appellant ineligible for benefits effective June 2, 1969 on the ground she was not available for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2). The issue of whether a claimant’s efforts to secure employment were sufficiently diligent to satisfy the statutory requirement of availability is a factual question (Matter of Knobloch [Gatherwood], 28 A D 2d 765) to be determined by the board “by a hindsighted evaluation of a claimant’s performance ”, (Matter of Natoli [Gatherwood], 27 A D 2d 972.) And the issue of credibility of the witnesses, upon which so much hinges in cases of this nature, is unquestionably within the sole province of the board (Matter of Collazo [Gatherwood], 31 A D 2d 985). Accordingly, if the board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence it must be upheld (e.g., Matter of Lwnney [Gatherwood], 32 A D 2d 864). On the present record we cannot find that the board could not determine that appellant so conducted and restricted her search for employment that she was not “ genuinely in the labor market ” and thus was available for employment (e.g., Matter of Fico [Gatherwood], 29 A D 2d 1011). Decision affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Aulisi, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J. P.

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

Reynolds, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling appellant ineligible for benefits effective June 2, 1969 on the ground she was not available for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2). The issue of whether a claimant’s efforts to secure employment were sufficiently diligent to satisfy the statutory requirement of availability is a factual question (Matter of Knobloch [Gatherwood], 28 A D 2d 765) to be determined by the board “by a hindsighted evaluation of a claimant’s performance ”, (Matter of Natoli [Gatherwood], 27 A D 2d 972.) And the issue of credibility of the witnesses, upon which so much hinges in cases of this nature, is unquestionably within the sole province of the board (Matter of Collazo [Gatherwood], 31 A D 2d 985). Accordingly, if the board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence it must be upheld (e.g., Matter of Lwnney [Gatherwood], 32 A D 2d 864). On the present record we cannot find that the board could not determine that appellant so conducted and restricted her search for employment that she was not “ genuinely in the labor market ” and thus was available for employment (e.g., Matter of Fico [Gatherwood], 29 A D 2d 1011). Decision affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Aulisi, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J. P.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 875, 310 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-sherman-nyappdiv-1970.