In re the Claim of Alhadeff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Alhadeff

179 A.D.2d 858, 578 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 90

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 179 A.D.2d 858 (In re the Claim of Alhadeff) 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 the Claim of Alhadeff, 179 A.D.2d 858, 578 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 90 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

While claimant allegedly resigned from his employment to care for his wife, his own testimony at the hearing establishes otherwise. There is also no medical evidence in the record to show that claimant’s presence at home was necessary. Rather, the evidence reveals that claimant left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons. Consequently, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Baker [Hartnett], 147 AD2d 790, 791, appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 714; Matter of Sillan [French Tel. Cable Co. — Levine], 53 AD2d 719; Matter of Hamilton [Levine], 50 AD2d 977).

Levine, Mercure, Crew III, Mahoney and Casey, 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

While claimant allegedly resigned from his employment to care for his wife, his own testimony at the hearing establishes otherwise. There is also no medical evidence in the record to show that claimant’s presence at home was necessary. Rather, the evidence reveals that claimant left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons. Consequently, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Baker [Hartnett], 147 AD2d 790, 791, appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 714; Matter of Sillan [French Tel. Cable Co. — Levine], 53 AD2d 719; Matter of Hamilton [Levine], 50 AD2d 977).

Levine, Mercure, Crew III, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 858, 578 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-alhadeff-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack