In re the Claim of Weingrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Weingrow

198 A.D.2d 662, 604 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10557

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 662 (In re the Claim of Weingrow) 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 Weingrow, 198 A.D.2d 662, 604 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10557 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 8, 1993, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant’s case was reopened by the Board for the sole purpose of determining whether there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards set forth in the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Commn. v Sitkin (1983 WL 44294 [SD NY, Aug. 1, 1983, Carter, J., 79 Civ 5899]). We have examined the Board’s decision finding no substantial procedural violations and adhering to its prior decision ruling claimant ineligible to receive benefits, and conclude that this decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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 March 8, 1993, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant’s case was reopened by the Board for the sole purpose of determining whether there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards set forth in the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Commn. v Sitkin (1983 WL 44294 [SD NY, Aug. 1, 1983, Carter, J., 79 Civ 5899]). We have examined the Board’s decision finding no substantial procedural violations and adhering to its prior decision ruling claimant ineligible to receive benefits, and conclude that this decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 662, 604 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-weingrow-nyappdiv-1993.