In re the Claim of Arroyo

247 A.D.2d 745, 669 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1565
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 19, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 745 (In re the Claim of Arroyo) 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 Arroyo, 247 A.D.2d 745, 669 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 22, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Claimant testified at the hearing that he left his employment after he was advised by his employer that he was being placed on probation, pending an arbitration hearing, for poor job performance. Claimant explained that he quit his employment because he felt that by accepting probation, he would be admitting his guilt. The employer, however, testified that an arbitration hearing had been scheduled to resolve the issue and that work was available to claimant throughout the proposed probationary period. Whether good cause exists for leaving one’s employment is an issue of fact for the Board, whose decision will be sustained if supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Clark [Capital Area Community Health Plan — Hartnett], 156 AD2d 909, 911). We find that substantial evidence exists here to support the Board’s decision that claimant left his employment under disqualifying circumstances and it is, accordingly, affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, 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

Related

In re the Claim of Viera
48 A.D.3d 870 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Smith
28 A.D.3d 846 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re the Claim of Mineo
307 A.D.2d 611 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Brown
305 A.D.2d 915 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Luta
305 A.D.2d 786 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Bell
257 A.D.2d 836 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 A.D.2d 745, 669 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-arroyo-nyappdiv-1998.