Legal Opinion

In re the Claim of Bunzl

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

Decided December 23, 1955PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoon, J.

The effect of the Referee’s decision is that claimant was not totally unemployed from December 13th through December 23, 1954,; that claimant was overpaid for the weeks ending’ December 19th and December 26, 1954, and that claimant had willfully misrepresented that she was totally unemployed, for which a forfeiture of twenty-four effective days was imposed. Appellant contends that she was totally unemployed during the period in question, was not overpaid, and did not willfully misrepresent.

Claimant was a designer of women’s clothing. In seeking employment as a designer, claimant made sketches…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In re the Claim of BernsteinNew York Court of Appeals · 1952
  2. In re the Claim of BernsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1951
  3. In re the Claim of EmeryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In re the Claim of ValvoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
  2. Jacobs v. District Unemployment Compensation BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978
  3. In re the Claim of ForbesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  4. In re the Claim of BoydAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
  5. In re the Claim of WolfeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API