In re Lubin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Lubin

34 A.D.2d 591, 308 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5372

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 591 (In re Lubin) 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 Lubin, 34 A.D.2d 591, 308 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Sweeney, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective March 29,1969 on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the board’s decision. We believe there is. Claimant testified he left his employment because he was not satisfied with the wages or the working conditions, and there is no evidence of any circumstance developing during the course of his six months employment which would have justified his refusal of employment in the first instance. On these facts, we cannot disturb the board’s finding. (Matter of Pabnieri [Catherwood], 33 A D 2d 588; Matter of Sellers [Cather-wood], 13 A D 2d 204.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Sweeney, J.

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

Sweeney, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective March 29,1969 on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the board’s decision. We believe there is. Claimant testified he left his employment because he was not satisfied with the wages or the working conditions, and there is no evidence of any circumstance developing during the course of his six months employment which would have justified his refusal of employment in the first instance. On these facts, we cannot disturb the board’s finding. (Matter of Pabnieri [Catherwood], 33 A D 2d 588; Matter of Sellers [Cather-wood], 13 A D 2d 204.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Sweeney, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 591, 308 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lubin-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack