In re the Claim of Zenn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Zenn

50 A.D.2d 700, 375 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12559

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 700 (In re the Claim of Zenn) 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 Zenn, 50 A.D.2d 700, 375 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 31, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner ruling claimant ineligible for benefits effective January 18, 1972 to May 12, 1974 because he failed to comply with registration requirements and denying his request to predate his claim to January 18, 1972. The claimant alleges he did not file his claim for unemployment insurance benefits at the time he voluntarily retired from government service because of misinformation given to him at the local office prior to the date of retirement. Claimant, however, was then only inquiring regarding benefit rights at a time when he was still employed and contemplating voluntary retirement. The information given him, according to his testimony, was essentially correct. The possibility of a change in the nature of his retirement to one for disability did not occur until he made application for same, and prudence would dictate that he then register a claim for unemployment insurance benefits in the anticipation that his application might be granted and not wait for some two years. There was substantial evidence for the board’s finding that claimant failed to comply with the registration requirements (Matter of lacone [Catherwood], 34 AD2d 590). The denial of claimant’s request to predate his application was a reasonable exercise of discretion since such action would necessarily dispense with the specific reporting requirements which are necessary to properly administer the Unemployment Insurance Law (Matter of Nixon [Catherwood], 29 AD2d 895; Matter of Omolino [Catherwood], 11 AD2d 553). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Koreman, Main 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 January 31, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner ruling claimant ineligible for benefits effective January 18, 1972 to May 12, 1974 because he failed to comply with registration requirements and denying his request to predate his claim to January 18, 1972. The claimant alleges he did not file his claim for unemployment insurance benefits at the time he voluntarily retired from government service because of misinformation given to him at the local office prior to the date of retirement. Claimant, however, was then only inquiring regarding benefit rights at a time when he was still employed and contemplating voluntary retirement. The information given him, according to his testimony, was essentially correct. The possibility of a change in the nature of his retirement to one for disability did not occur until he made application for same, and prudence would dictate that he then register a claim for unemployment insurance benefits in the anticipation that his application might be granted and not wait for some two years. There was substantial evidence for the board’s finding that claimant failed to comply with the registration requirements (Matter of lacone [Catherwood], 34 AD2d 590). The denial of claimant’s request to predate his application was a reasonable exercise of discretion since such action would necessarily dispense with the specific reporting requirements which are necessary to properly administer the Unemployment Insurance Law (Matter of Nixon [Catherwood], 29 AD2d 895; Matter of Omolino [Catherwood], 11 AD2d 553). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Koreman, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 700, 375 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-zenn-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack