Legal Opinion

In re the Claim of Abramson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 10, 2004PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtRose, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insur*806anee Appeal Board, filed November 26, 2003, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its original decision ruling that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he had no covered base period employment.

Claimant, an accountant, was placed by Staff Plus, Inc., a temporary unemployment agency, with Goldman Sachs, an investment brokerage firm. After being laid off by Goldman Sachs in 2002, claimant was found eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Subsequently, however, claimant’s application for additional…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. In re Concourse Ophthalmology Associates, P. C.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
  2. In re KimbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  3. In re Stat ServicesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  4. In re International Student Exchange, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  5. In re Cameryn Entertainment Co. Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In re the Claim of AbramsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API