In re the Claim of Ballard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Ballard

176 A.D.2d 428, 574 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12419

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 176 A.D.2d 428 (In re the Claim of Ballard) 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 Ballard, 176 A.D.2d 428, 574 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment [429]*429Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 23, 1990, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

The evidence establishes that claimant sold his 50% interest in the corporation after the other stockholder insisted that claimant either sell said interest or buy him out. The business was not in imminent danger of failing and had not filed for bankruptcy; nor did there appear to be any problem with paying both stockholders a salary. As such, claimant has failed to demonstrate a compelling reason for the sale, and the fact that he might have had a personality clash with the other stockholder is of no consequence. The decision that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause is therefore supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Sonners [Roberts], 133 AD2d 491; Matter of Berry [Catherwood] 32 AD2d 594; Matter of Amato [Catherwood] 26 AD2d 599).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Harvey, 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 [429]*429Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 23, 1990, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

The evidence establishes that claimant sold his 50% interest in the corporation after the other stockholder insisted that claimant either sell said interest or buy him out. The business was not in imminent danger of failing and had not filed for bankruptcy; nor did there appear to be any problem with paying both stockholders a salary. As such, claimant has failed to demonstrate a compelling reason for the sale, and the fact that he might have had a personality clash with the other stockholder is of no consequence. The decision that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause is therefore supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Sonners [Roberts], 133 AD2d 491; Matter of Berry [Catherwood] 32 AD2d 594; Matter of Amato [Catherwood] 26 AD2d 599).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 428, 574 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-ballard-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack