In re Graff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Graff

18 A.D.3d 1055, 794 N.Y.S.2d 738, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5431

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

DecidedMay 19, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 1055 (In re Graff) 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 Graff, 18 A.D.3d 1055, 794 N.Y.S.2d 738, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 10, 2004, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant worked as a paralegal for the employer from January 15, 2002 until August 22, 2003, when she left this job to take a position with a real estate firm that paid a higher salary and provided greater benefits. Claimant was terminated from the real estate firm after working only a few days and she thereafter applied for and received unemployment insurance benefits, to which the employer objected. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board upheld claimant’s receipt of benefits, and the employer now appeals.

Claimant’s pursuit of a more favorable job offer constituted good cause for leaving her job with the employer (see Matter of Dank [Ross], 80 AD2d 717 [1981]; compare Matter of Kennedy [Commissioner of Labor], 294 AD2d 700 [2002]; Matter of Spinelli [Commissioner of Labor], 250 AD2d 920 [1998]). The employer’s assertion that claimant accepted the new position knowing she lacked the requisite skills presented a question of credibility for the Board to resolve (see Matter of De Ruby [Commissioner of Labor], 10 AD3d 757, 758 [2004]). As substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, we decline to disturb it.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 10, 2004, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant worked as a paralegal for the employer from January 15, 2002 until August 22, 2003, when she left this job to take a position with a real estate firm that paid a higher salary and provided greater benefits. Claimant was terminated from the real estate firm after working only a few days and she thereafter applied for and received unemployment insurance benefits, to which the employer objected. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board upheld claimant’s receipt of benefits, and the employer now appeals.

Claimant’s pursuit of a more favorable job offer constituted good cause for leaving her job with the employer (see Matter of Dank [Ross], 80 AD2d 717 [1981]; compare Matter of Kennedy [Commissioner of Labor], 294 AD2d 700 [2002]; Matter of Spinelli [Commissioner of Labor], 250 AD2d 920 [1998]). The employer’s assertion that claimant accepted the new position knowing she lacked the requisite skills presented a question of credibility for the Board to resolve (see Matter of De Ruby [Commissioner of Labor], 10 AD3d 757, 758 [2004]). As substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, we decline to disturb it.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 1055, 794 N.Y.S.2d 738, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-graff-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack