In re Claim of Cintron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Claim of Cintron

29 A.D.2d 1002, 289 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4130

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

DecidedApril 29, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 1002 (In re Claim of Cintron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Claim of Cintron, 29 A.D.2d 1002, 289 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 23, 1967. Claimant, a clerk-typist, was disqualified from unemployment insurance benefits upon a determination that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1). The board found that the reasons for “ claimant’s quit were personal ” and that she “ should have restricted her leave request to a two-week period ”, which probably would have been granted. This determination, when supported by substantial evidence, as here, is final (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Sperling \_Catherwood'\, 20 A D 2d 584, mot. for iv. to opp. den. 14 N Y 2d 481) and we perceive no basis to disturb it. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum decision by Aulisi, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 23, 1967. Claimant, a clerk-typist, was disqualified from unemployment insurance benefits upon a determination that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1). The board found that the reasons for “ claimant’s quit were personal ” and that she “ should have restricted her leave request to a two-week period ”, which probably would have been granted. This determination, when supported by substantial evidence, as here, is final (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Sperling \_Catherwood'\, 20 A D 2d 584, mot. for iv. to opp. den. 14 N Y 2d 481) and we perceive no basis to disturb it. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum decision by Aulisi, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 1002, 289 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-claim-of-cintron-nyappdiv-1968.