From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Lehrman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 18, 1953
281 App. Div. 936 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)

Opinion

March 18, 1953.

Appeal from Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

Present — Foster, P.J., Brewster, Bergan, Coon and Imrie, JJ.


Claimant refused an offer of employment, known to be temporary, on October 11, 1951. It is conceded that the refusal was without good cause. It subsequently developed that the employment would have ended October 16, 1951. The initial determination of the commissioner disqualified claimant generally because of this refusal. The referee modified this determination by limiting the disqualification to the period that the employment would have lasted and determined that the disqualification ended on October 16, 1951. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board modified the referee's decision by restoring a general disqualification and sustaining the initial determination of the commissioner. The statute makes no distinction between temporary and permanent employment. In most cases it would be uncertain how long a "temporary" employment would last. The "refusal * * * without good cause" of any employment which otherwise meets the requirements of the statute, whether it be characterized as temporary or permanent is sufficient to warrant disqualification. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Lehrman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 18, 1953
281 App. Div. 936 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)
Case details for

Matter of Lehrman

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of BERTHA LEHRMAN, Appellant. EDWARD CORSI, as…

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

Date published: Mar 18, 1953

Citations

281 App. Div. 936 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)

Citing Cases

Matter of Weinberg

On this appeal it is contended that a disqualification under subdivision 2 of section 593, is effective until…

Matter of Shanley

As claimant contends, such benefits "are to be considered part of over-all compensation." ( Matter of…