In re the Claim of Bonilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Bonilla

233 A.D.2d 735, 650 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12056

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 735 (In re the Claim of Bonilla) 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 Bonilla, 233 A.D.2d 735, 650 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 12, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a postal worker until December 1994 when he was arrested on the George Washington Bridge by New York City police officers after threatening to commit suicide by jumping into the river. When claimant sought to return to his job, he was required to release his medical records for review by a psychiatrist who would evaluate claimant’s fitness to resume his duties. Claimant refused to release his medical records with the result that the psychiatric examination was never completed and claimant was not permitted to return to work. The Board subsequently found claimant disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. We affirm.

When a claimant fails to a take a step that is reasonably [736]*736required as a prerequisite to continued employment, the claimant will be deemed to have left his employment without good cause (see, Matter of Johnson [Levine], 50 AD2d 1022, 1023). We conclude that the Board’s determination finding claimant disqualified from receiving benefits was supported by substantial evidence in the record and should not be disturbed.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Peters and Spain, 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 July 12, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a postal worker until December 1994 when he was arrested on the George Washington Bridge by New York City police officers after threatening to commit suicide by jumping into the river. When claimant sought to return to his job, he was required to release his medical records for review by a psychiatrist who would evaluate claimant’s fitness to resume his duties. Claimant refused to release his medical records with the result that the psychiatric examination was never completed and claimant was not permitted to return to work. The Board subsequently found claimant disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. We affirm.

When a claimant fails to a take a step that is reasonably [736]*736required as a prerequisite to continued employment, the claimant will be deemed to have left his employment without good cause (see, Matter of Johnson [Levine], 50 AD2d 1022, 1023). We conclude that the Board’s determination finding claimant disqualified from receiving benefits was supported by substantial evidence in the record and should not be disturbed.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 735, 650 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-bonilla-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack