From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Stadler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 7, 1951
278 App. Div. 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Opinion

March 7, 1951.

Appeal from Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

Present — Foster, P.J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ. [See post, p. 865.]


Claimant is by occupation a clerk-typist. From 1942 to 1948 she earned from $22 to $25 a week. In 1948 she worked temporarily for the City of New York at $82.50 semi-monthly and in 1949 became unemployed. She filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits. A position in the Bronx where she resides was obtained by the Division of Placement and Unemployment Insurance at from $35 to $40 a week. The hours were from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Claimant refused the employment on the ground the closing hour was too late, although she did not object to working from 8:00 or 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. The referee and the appeal board have found that her refusal to accept the offered work disqualified her from benefits under subdivision 2 of section 593 Lab. of the Labor Law because it was without good cause. This was within the range of the board's power to make a factual evaluation. Claimants cannot always be fitted to jobs with exact precision. ( Matter of Heater [ Corsi], 270 App. Div. 311.) The position offered carried higher wages than claimant had previously earned in private employment. The decision determining a previous temporary withdrawal by claimant and unavailability for employment is likewise justified. While the decision in both respects should be affirmed, the disqualification arising under section 593 for refusal of employment is not permanent in the sense claimant cannot again qualify for benefits. Even though the section is silent on the duration of disqualification, it must be read in its entirety to mean that it does not extend disqualification beyond the time provided for a separation from employment without good cause under paragraph c of subdivision 1. This period has now long passed and the affirmance is without prejudice to claimant's subsequent status in respect of benefits. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Stadler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 7, 1951
278 App. Div. 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)
Case details for

Matter of Stadler

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of ANTONIA J. STADLER, Appellant. EDWARD CORSI…

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

Date published: Mar 7, 1951

Citations

278 App. Div. 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Citing Cases

Matter of Walsh

Appellant has a subsidiary point to the effect that the period of suspension was illegal. This point has been…

Matter of Sybell

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