In re the Claim of Solomon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Solomon

53 A.D.2d 931, 385 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15719

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 931 (In re the Claim of Solomon) 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 Solomon, 53 A.D.2d 931, 385 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 5, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits because he was not available for employment. Availability for employment during a specific period is a factual question and thus thé board’s determination on this issue must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence (e.g. Matter of Herman [Catherwood], 25 AD2d 473). Here, the board could properly conclude on the instant record that following the loss of his employment as a machine cutter in New York City and move to Florida, claimant, aged 67, did not conduct a diligent search for employment. The board could determine that claimant’s job seeking efforts were limited and repetitive and also unrealistic (Matter of Imperato [Levine] 50 AD2d 1014; Matter of Stupell [Levine], 47 AD2d 597). Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Larkin, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 5, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits because he was not available for employment. Availability for employment during a specific period is a factual question and thus thé board’s determination on this issue must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence (e.g. Matter of Herman [Catherwood], 25 AD2d 473). Here, the board could properly conclude on the instant record that following the loss of his employment as a machine cutter in New York City and move to Florida, claimant, aged 67, did not conduct a diligent search for employment. The board could determine that claimant’s job seeking efforts were limited and repetitive and also unrealistic (Matter of Imperato [Levine] 50 AD2d 1014; Matter of Stupell [Levine], 47 AD2d 597). Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Larkin, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 931, 385 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-solomon-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack