In re the Claim of Boone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Boone

297 A.D.2d 848, 746 N.Y.2d 853, 746 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8304

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

DecidedSeptember 12, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 848 (In re the Claim of Boone) 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 Boone, 297 A.D.2d 848, 746 N.Y.2d 853, 746 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant resigned from his employment with an electronics company three months after his marriage so that he could relocate to Washington, the home state of his new wife. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment due to marriage.

This Court has consistently held that a claimant who voluntarily leaves his or her employment because of marriage is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Labor Law § 593 [1] [b]; Matter of Radwan [Commissioner of Labor], 267 AD2d 569; Matter of Callahan [Commissioner of Labor], 251 AD2d 724). In view of claimant’s clear intention to leave New York to join his wife following their marriage (see Matter of Hanrahan [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 665), we conclude that the Board’s decision disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Dybowski [Commissioner of Labor], 251 AD2d 874, 875).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, 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

Claimant resigned from his employment with an electronics company three months after his marriage so that he could relocate to Washington, the home state of his new wife. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment due to marriage.

This Court has consistently held that a claimant who voluntarily leaves his or her employment because of marriage is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Labor Law § 593 [1] [b]; Matter of Radwan [Commissioner of Labor], 267 AD2d 569; Matter of Callahan [Commissioner of Labor], 251 AD2d 724). In view of claimant’s clear intention to leave New York to join his wife following their marriage (see Matter of Hanrahan [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 665), we conclude that the Board’s decision disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Dybowski [Commissioner of Labor], 251 AD2d 874, 875).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 848, 746 N.Y.2d 853, 746 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-boone-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack