Gacevic v. Vima Property Group Inc.
Case Details
- Nature of Suit
- 710 Labor: Fair Standards
- Status
- Unknown
- Procedural Posture
- appeal
- State
- New York
- Circuit
- 2nd Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The district court affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying the plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, finding the ALJ's RFC determination and step-five analysis were supported by substantial evidence.
Similar Rulings
The defendant administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act, who had determined that the plaintiff was ineligible for unemployment benefits, appealed from the trial court's decision remanding the plaintiff's unemploy- ment compensation action to the Board of Review of the Employment Security Appeals Division for reconsideration by its appeals referee of the decision denying the plaintiff's motion to open the referee's decision dismiss- ing her appeal as untimely. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court exceeded its limited scope of judicial review in making factual findings and in substituting its judgment for that of the board. Held: The trial court improperly exceeded its limited scope of judicial review by finding facts beyond those contained in the certified record and by relying on its improper findings in examining the board's decision, and, on the basis of the controlling factual findings set forth in the certified record, this court could not conclude that the board acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion in affirming the referee's denial of the motion to open. Argued November 17—officially released December 30, 2025
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.