In re the Claim of Betancourt

60 A.D.2d 719, 401 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14750
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 29, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 60 A.D.2d 719 (In re the Claim of Betancourt) 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 Betancourt, 60 A.D.2d 719, 401 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 10, 1976, which denied an application to reconsider its prior decision and from a decision filed June 3, 1976 sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective September 9, 1975 because he lost his employment through misconduct in connection therewith and denying claimant’s application for vocational training pursuant to section 599 of the Labor Law. While it is reasonably certain that claimant is not guilty of misconduct as to his employment within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Law (Labor Law, art 18), it is established that he lost his employment by voluntarily leaving the same through conduct provoking his discharge because the employer had no alternative (see Matter of Keenan [Levine], 51 AD2d 596; cf. Matter of De Grego [Levine], 39 NY2d 180, 183). The board clearly considered the excuse proffered by the claimant as to his possession of the gun and found a failure to establish good cause. The decision of the board appears to hold there was misconduct, but it also held: "Claimant’s absence from work was due to his incarceration because of his own violation of the penal law.” This is sufficient as a finding of voluntary leaving of employment and the decisions should be affirmed. Decisions affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur; Main, J., concurs in the result only.

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

Related

Ford v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission of Missouri
841 S.W.2d 255 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1992)
Yardville Supply Co. v. Board of Review, Dept. of Labor
554 A.2d 1337 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1989)
Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission v. Stirrat
688 S.W.2d 750 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 A.D.2d 719, 401 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-betancourt-nyappdiv-1977.