MATTER OF HERMAN v. Blum
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
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…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Purdy v. KreisbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Sowa v. LooneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1968
- Leogrande v. State Liquor AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1967
3Cited by4 opinions
- Celestial Food Corp. of Coram, Inc. v. New York State Liquor AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Kirk v. HammockAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- McKeon v. BrezenoffAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Bradford v. BlumAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982