In re the Claim of Bashoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Bashoff

49 A.D.2d 660, 371 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10497

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

DecidedJuly 24, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 660 (In re the Claim of Bashoff) 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 Bashoff, 49 A.D.2d 660, 371 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Decision affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott and Kane, JJ., concur; Main and Larkin, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse in the following memorandum by Main, J. Main, J. (dissenting). We respectfully dissent. The conditions about which claimant complained, excessive heat and dust, were temporary in nature, lasting three weeks at most. They came about as a result of the employer’s attempts to relocate and renovate the pharmacy department where claimant worked part-time. There is no medical evidence to support the claimant’s bare assertion. By claimant’s own testimony, when he complained to his immediate superior he was advised to take time off. There is no substantial evidence to support the board’s decision. The only credible evidence would clearly support a determination that claimant left because of his dissatisfaction with his wages, the primary reason provided by claimant on his original application for benefits. Such a reason does not provide good cause. The decision of the board should be reversed.

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

Decision affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott and Kane, JJ., concur; Main and Larkin, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse in the following memorandum by Main, J. Main, J. (dissenting). We respectfully dissent. The conditions about which claimant complained, excessive heat and dust, were temporary in nature, lasting three weeks at most. They came about as a result of the employer’s attempts to relocate and renovate the pharmacy department where claimant worked part-time. There is no medical evidence to support the claimant’s bare assertion. By claimant’s own testimony, when he complained to his immediate superior he was advised to take time off. There is no substantial evidence to support the board’s decision. The only credible evidence would clearly support a determination that claimant left because of his dissatisfaction with his wages, the primary reason provided by claimant on his original application for benefits. Such a reason does not provide good cause. The decision of the board should be reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 660, 371 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-bashoff-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack