Opinion
August 1, 1961
Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding that claimant was not eligible for benefits because she was not available for work beginning January 18, 1960. Claimant, a clerk-typist, filed for benefits effective October 5, 1959 and thereafter received 14 benefit checks through the week ending January 14, 1960. Claimant was 25 years of age at the time of the hearing before the Referee and until her marriage in June, 1959 was employed by an insurance firm in New York City. She had been steadily employed for nine years prior to her marriage. Following her marriage she left her employment and moved to Suffern, N.Y., where her husband is a chiropractor. She was employed in July and August of 1959 in a clerical capacity by a concern in a nearby community until the concern went into bankruptcy and was also employed briefly in December, 1959 as a corsetiere at an establishment in the Bergen Mall Shopping Center, Paramus, New Jersey. The only issue involved is claimant's availability for employment based on her sincerity of efforts to find employment. Claimant contends that she tried to find employment pointing out her past record of employment, her initiative in finding employment on moving to Suffern and later as a corsetiere, but that due to her inexperience in certain clerical areas and pregnancy she was unsuccessful despite her efforts. The board claims that her efforts were insincere in that for a period of three weeks prior to January 27, 1960 she had undertaken no personal interviews and could not even remember whom she had contacted in search of work. She further admitted that she read the want ads only in a New Jersey paper and a local weekly paper despite admonitions by the examiner that she read the local daily paper and further that for the week prior to the hearing on March 21, 1960 she had not read any want ads but had relied on her sister to let her know of any likely prospects. There is also a strong indication that she would not consider a job in Suffern or the nearby vicinity not only for her stated reason, that the salaries were lower, but also because she feared some sort of involvement or unfavorable notoriety which would injure her husband's professional standing. Claimant's husband had an income of $12,000 per year but claimant stated most of this was utilized in building up his practice and that her income was needed to furnish the home and to pay for groceries and staples. Availability for employment is a question of fact to be determined by the Referee and the Appeal Board and such determination must be upheld if there is substantial evidence to sustain the finding ( Matter of Dunn [ Corsi], 1 A.D.2d 722; Matter of Gaede [ Lubin], 9 A.D.2d 588; Matter of Langer [ Catherwood], 11 A.D.2d 560; Matter of Peters [ Catherwood], 11 A.D.2d 582). Whatever conclusion one might reach from reading the record as to the ultimate correctness of the board's decision, there is ample evidence in the record to sustain its determination. Decision affirmed. without costs. Bergan, P.J., Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.