In re the Claim of Berkmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Berkmann

18 A.D.3d 943, 794 N.Y.S.2d 481, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4880

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

DecidedMay 5, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 943 (In re the Claim of Berkmann) 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 Berkmann, 18 A.D.3d 943, 794 N.Y.S.2d 481, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 27, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant worked for a law firm as a part-time legal secretary. She left her job after her parents, with whom she, her disabled husband and her two children were living, relocated from New York to Pennsylvania. The denial of her application for unemployment insurance benefits was upheld by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. Claimant stated that she relocated to Pennsylvania because her parents were moving and she could not afford an apartment in New York. She admitted, however, that she did not look for another job to supplement her income or an apartment outside of the school district in which her daughter was enrolled. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant left her job for personal and noncompelling reasons (see Matter of Weiss [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d 1024, 1025 [2004]; Matter of Polito [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 967 [2003]). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb it.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, 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 Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 27, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant worked for a law firm as a part-time legal secretary. She left her job after her parents, with whom she, her disabled husband and her two children were living, relocated from New York to Pennsylvania. The denial of her application for unemployment insurance benefits was upheld by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. Claimant stated that she relocated to Pennsylvania because her parents were moving and she could not afford an apartment in New York. She admitted, however, that she did not look for another job to supplement her income or an apartment outside of the school district in which her daughter was enrolled. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant left her job for personal and noncompelling reasons (see Matter of Weiss [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d 1024, 1025 [2004]; Matter of Polito [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 967 [2003]). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb it.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 943, 794 N.Y.S.2d 481, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-berkmann-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack