In re the Claim of Zachmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Zachmann

206 A.D.2d 651, 614 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7342

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 651 (In re the Claim of Zachmann) 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 Zachmann, 206 A.D.2d 651, 614 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 2, 1993, which denied claimant’s application for reconsideration of a prior decision ruling that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Initially, we find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s rejection of claimant’s application for reconsideration of its prior decision. In any event, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant was ineligible for emergency unemployment insurance benefits because he did not make a systematic and sustained search for employment. Although claimant argues that he made a reasonable and diligent search for work, the record belies that assertion.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White 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 2, 1993, which denied claimant’s application for reconsideration of a prior decision ruling that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Initially, we find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s rejection of claimant’s application for reconsideration of its prior decision. In any event, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant was ineligible for emergency unemployment insurance benefits because he did not make a systematic and sustained search for employment. Although claimant argues that he made a reasonable and diligent search for work, the record belies that assertion.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 651, 614 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-zachmann-nyappdiv-1994.