Court Opinion

ID: 9787755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:24:06.057797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:00.276936
License: Public Domain

Burke, J. (dissenting).
Where a claim for benefits under article 18 of the Labor Law can be recognized only if the claimant’s employment as a typist, secured through an oral and written representation made by the claimant that she was a skilled typist and had been previously employed as such, is accepted by the Department of Labor as a necessary part of the required period of covered employment, it cannot be said that there is substantial evidence that the claimant is not reasonably fitted by training and experience to be a typist.
The claimant, having proven by an approved performance that she was well qualified to be a typist by the training and experience she had asserted she possessed, is as a matter of law ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits when she refuses a re-employment as a typist by the satisfied former employer (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2).
Therefore, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Order reversed, etc.