Case Name: ANTHONY J. SCARPA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1949-07-08
Citations: 4 N.J. Super. 336
Docket Number: 
Parties: ANTHONY J. SCARPA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 336–338

Head Matter:
ANTHONY J. SCARPA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued June 27, 1949
Decided July 8, 1949.
Before Judges McGeehan, Donges and Colie.
Mr. Lawrence Friedman (Mr. Sidney C. Swirsky, attorney) argued the cause for the plaintiff-appellant.
Mr. Clarence F. McGovern argued the cause for the defendant-respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff was employed as a millworker from 1941 to September 20, 1947, when he was laid off. He claimed benefits for unemployment and received same. Being still unemployed on September 20, 1948, he filed another claim for unemployment compensation. The deputy held that plaintiff was ineligible for benefits on September 20, 1948, because he was unavailable for work, by reason of lack of reasonable diligence in seeking employment. Appeal was taken from this determination by plaintiff, and a hearing was held by the Appeal Tribunal, which affirmed the determination of the deputy. Plaintiff appealed this decision to the Board of Review, which affirmed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal on the record before such body and for the reasons given by it for its determination.
At the hearing referred to the plaintiff was not represented by counsel and the testimony was elicited by questions propounded by the examiner, which indicates that plaintiff alleged that he visited a number of places seeking employment and continued such efforts throughout the period of unemployment. However, the number of visits and efforts to secure employment was not asked nor stated, the places where such efforts were made were not named, except as to a few. and the record is not adequate to fairly pass upon the question of plaintiff's efforts to secure employment and his availability therefor under the statute.
We conclude, therefore, that the cause should be remanded to the respondent for further hearing, in order to do justice to the parties involved. It is so ordered.