In re the Claims of Spinella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claims of Spinella

282 A.D. 974, 125 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5604

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 282 A.D. 974 (In re the Claims of Spinella) 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 Claims of Spinella, 282 A.D. 974, 125 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the Industrial Commissioner from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The case is somewhat similar to the problem presented by Matter of Yeager (Corsi) (ante, p. 604) decided herewith. Here claimants were pressers of men’s clothing. The contract of employment provided that there would be a vacation period consisting of the first two weeks in July; the payment for the first week to be paid at the commencement of the vacation period and the payment for the second week to be made “ when and if the employee returns to work.” The employment of the claimants was terminated June 6, 1952, because of lack of work and they were paid June 12th, for this period. On June 26th, they received payment for the first week of July, under their vacation contract. When the plant shut down on June 6th, claimants were told they would be advised by mail when the plant would reopen. It did not reopen until August 4th. Thus, the vacation pay was held by the Appeal Board and must be deemed to be part of the eompensatioi} for previous services, and during such period, as well as immediately before and after it, it was properly held that there was a “ total lack of employment ” within the statute as it has been given administrative and judicial interpretation. Decision unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondents. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.

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

Appeal by the Industrial Commissioner from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The case is somewhat similar to the problem presented by Matter of Yeager (Corsi) (ante, p. 604) decided herewith. Here claimants were pressers of men’s clothing. The contract of employment provided that there would be a vacation period consisting of the first two weeks in July; the payment for the first week to be paid at the commencement of the vacation period and the payment for the second week to be made “ when and if the employee returns to work.” The employment of the claimants was terminated June 6, 1952, because of lack of work and they were paid June 12th, for this period. On June 26th, they received payment for the first week of July, under their vacation contract. When the plant shut down on June 6th, claimants were told they would be advised by mail when the plant would reopen. It did not reopen until August 4th. Thus, the vacation pay was held by the Appeal Board and must be deemed to be part of the eompensatioi} for previous services, and during such period, as well as immediately before and after it, it was properly held that there was a “ total lack of employment ” within the statute as it has been given administrative and judicial interpretation. Decision unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondents. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 974, 125 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claims-of-spinella-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack