In re the Claim of Bobrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Bobrow

243 A.D.2d 795, 665 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9724

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 795 (In re the Claim of Bobrow) 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 Bobrow, 243 A.D.2d 795, 665 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 14, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed by a packaging business in which he was also an officer, director and 50% shareholder. In 1994, a dispute arose between claimant and his coshareholder over the terms of their shareholder’s agreement. The dispute was resolved in April 1995 when claimant entered into a settlement agreement with the corporation in which he agreed to sell his shares and, in conjunction therewith, resigned from his positions with the corporation. We find that substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Although claimant maintains that he was forced out of the business by actions of his coshareholder, the Board, in the exercise of its power to determine issues of fact and credibility, concluded that this contention was unfounded; we find no reason to disturb this determination. Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the finding that claimant did not have a compelling reason to leave his employment, we affirm the Board’s decision (see generally, Matter of Schonwit [Sweeney], 241 AD2d 618; Matter of Sparber [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 858).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Casey, 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 May 14, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed by a packaging business in which he was also an officer, director and 50% shareholder. In 1994, a dispute arose between claimant and his coshareholder over the terms of their shareholder’s agreement. The dispute was resolved in April 1995 when claimant entered into a settlement agreement with the corporation in which he agreed to sell his shares and, in conjunction therewith, resigned from his positions with the corporation. We find that substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Although claimant maintains that he was forced out of the business by actions of his coshareholder, the Board, in the exercise of its power to determine issues of fact and credibility, concluded that this contention was unfounded; we find no reason to disturb this determination. Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the finding that claimant did not have a compelling reason to leave his employment, we affirm the Board’s decision (see generally, Matter of Schonwit [Sweeney], 241 AD2d 618; Matter of Sparber [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 858).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 795, 665 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-bobrow-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack