In re the Claim of Brinkman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Brinkman

32 A.D.2d 587, 299 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4212

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

DecidedApril 21, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 587 (In re the Claim of Brinkman) 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 Brinkman, 32 A.D.2d 587, 299 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4212 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Cooke, J.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 9, 1968, disqualifying claimant, a driving instructor, from unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employ[588]*588ment without good cause by provoking his discharge. It is undisputed that claimant insisted that his compensation for each .driving test or lesson be raised to 70% of the amount taken in by employer in connection with his work, in effect a substantial increase over the amount then being paid, and thereafter no more work was assigned to him. What constitutes good cause within paragraph (a) of subdivision 1 of section 593 of the Labor Law is a question of fact, the resolution of which is within the province of the board if supported by substantial evidence (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of D’Arcangelis [Cather-wood], 29 A D 2d 706) and, on the record here, we cannot disturb the board’s determination, as dissatisfaction with the recompense paid does not ipso facto constitute good cause (Matter of Haynes [Catherwood], 30 A D 2d 722; Matter of Simson [Catherwood], 18 A D 2d 744; Matter of Sellers [J. W. Mays, Inc. Catherwood], 13 A D 2d 204). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.

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

Cooke, J.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 9, 1968, disqualifying claimant, a driving instructor, from unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employ[588]*588ment without good cause by provoking his discharge. It is undisputed that claimant insisted that his compensation for each .driving test or lesson be raised to 70% of the amount taken in by employer in connection with his work, in effect a substantial increase over the amount then being paid, and thereafter no more work was assigned to him. What constitutes good cause within paragraph (a) of subdivision 1 of section 593 of the Labor Law is a question of fact, the resolution of which is within the province of the board if supported by substantial evidence (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of D’Arcangelis [Cather-wood], 29 A D 2d 706) and, on the record here, we cannot disturb the board’s determination, as dissatisfaction with the recompense paid does not ipso facto constitute good cause (Matter of Haynes [Catherwood], 30 A D 2d 722; Matter of Simson [Catherwood], 18 A D 2d 744; Matter of Sellers [J. W. Mays, Inc. Catherwood], 13 A D 2d 204). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 587, 299 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-brinkman-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack