In re the Claim of Walls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Walls

26 A.D.2d 883, 274 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3219

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 883 (In re the Claim of Walls) 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 Walls, 26 A.D.2d 883, 274 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by [884]*884the Court. Claimant appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying her benefits on the ground that without good cause she refused employment for which she was reasonably fitted by training and experience (Labor Law, § 503, subd. 2). The existence of “good canse” is factual and the determination of the board on this question if supported by substantial evidence is final. (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Lipschitz [Lubin], 7 A D 2d 777; Matter of Fiol [Corsi], 305 N. Y. 264.) Claimant, a legal secretary, refused proffered employment of one day’s duration although such would have been acceptable had it been for longer than a single day. The condition which claimant imposed as a prerequisite to her acceptance of the employment was not justifiable. (Matter of Krieger [Corsi], 279 App. Div. 681; Matter of Kotlowitz [Catherwood], 24 A D 2d 813.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

Memorandum by [884]*884the Court. Claimant appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying her benefits on the ground that without good cause she refused employment for which she was reasonably fitted by training and experience (Labor Law, § 503, subd. 2). The existence of “good canse” is factual and the determination of the board on this question if supported by substantial evidence is final. (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Lipschitz [Lubin], 7 A D 2d 777; Matter of Fiol [Corsi], 305 N. Y. 264.) Claimant, a legal secretary, refused proffered employment of one day’s duration although such would have been acceptable had it been for longer than a single day. The condition which claimant imposed as a prerequisite to her acceptance of the employment was not justifiable. (Matter of Krieger [Corsi], 279 App. Div. 681; Matter of Kotlowitz [Catherwood], 24 A D 2d 813.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 883, 274 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-walls-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack