In re the Clam of Bicjan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Clam of Bicjan

219 A.D.2d 751, 631 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9156

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 7, 1995·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 23, 1994, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she had a reasonable assurance of continued employment.

Claimant, a substitute teacher, was notified by her employer that her name appeared on the preferred list for the 1992-1993 academic year and that it intended to call her to teach during this period. In view of this, the Board found that she received a reasonable assurance of continued employment and, therefore, found her ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits during the summer of 1992. Upon review of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. This case is distinguishable from Matter of Bicjan (New York City Bd. of Educ. — Hudacs) (201 AD2d 813), which involved claimant’s claim for benefits during a different time period. We have examined claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Peters and Spain, 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 23, 1994, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she had a reasonable assurance of continued employment.

Claimant, a substitute teacher, was notified by her employer that her name appeared on the preferred list for the 1992-1993 academic year and that it intended to call her to teach during this period. In view of this, the Board found that she received a reasonable assurance of continued employment and, therefore, found her ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits during the summer of 1992. Upon review of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. This case is distinguishable from Matter of Bicjan (New York City Bd. of Educ. — Hudacs) (201 AD2d 813), which involved claimant’s claim for benefits during a different time period. We have examined claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

In re the Clam of Bicjan, 219 A.D.2d 751, 631 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

219 A.D.2d 751 (In re the Clam of Bicjan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related