From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Schmahman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 16, 1951
278 App. Div. 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Opinion

January 16, 1951.

Appeal from Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.


Claimant had been engaged in the restaurant business for many years as an employee and owner. He was last employed prior to 1938; after that he was in business for himself until July, 1948. Approximately a year later he filed a claim for benefits on July 18, 1949. Although the evidence rather strongly indicates that he was seeking to purchase another business rather than employment, nevertheless there is some evidence that he was looking for employment. He attached to his quest a condition that he would only work five hours a day, from 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., or from 12:00 to 5:00 P.M. The board, in addition to adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the referee, made the additional finding that there were establishments located in the financial and business districts of New York city which might have utilized claimant's services during the hours from 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. We find no substantial evidence to sustain this finding, or to sustain the conclusion that claimant was available for employment within the meaning of the statute. Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, on the law, and the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner reinstated, without costs. Foster, P.J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Schmahman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 16, 1951
278 App. Div. 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)
Case details for

Matter of Schmahman

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of ALEX SCHMAHMAN, Respondent. EDWARD CORSI, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 16, 1951

Citations

278 App. Div. 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Citing Cases

Matter of Sybell

There is no proof, however, that claimant's health was adversely affected by these different hours; nor does…

Matter of Bollinger

The appeal board held that claimant restricted her search for employment to that for which there were no…