MATTER OF HERMAN v. Blum

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF HERMAN v. Blum

425 N.E.2d 898, 54 N.Y.2d 677, 442 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2624

New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 30, 1981·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On summary consideration, order affirmed, without costs. There is substantial evidence to support the commissioner’s determination that petitioner’s failure to accept his work referral was without good cause (see Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 358). The asserted evidentiary errors have not been preserved for judicial review because of the absence of a specific objection or request for an adjournment to remedy the asserted defects (Matter of Sowa v Looney, 23 NY2d 329, 333; Matter of Leogrande v State Liq. Auth., 19 NY2d 418, 423).

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On summary consideration, order affirmed, without costs. There is substantial evidence to support the commissioner’s determination that petitioner’s failure to accept his work referral was without good cause (see Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 358). The asserted evidentiary errors have not been preserved for judicial review because of the absence of a specific objection or request for an adjournment to remedy the asserted defects (Matter of Sowa v Looney, 23 NY2d 329, 333; Matter of Leogrande v State Liq. Auth., 19 NY2d 418, 423).

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

MATTER OF HERMAN v. Blum, 425 N.E.2d 898, 54 N.Y.2d 677, 442 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2624 (N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

425 N.E.2d 898 (MATTER OF HERMAN v. Blum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related