In re the Claim of Budnik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Budnik

245 A.D.2d 941, 666 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13587

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

DecidedDecember 24, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 941 (In re the Claim of Budnik) 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 Budnik, 245 A.D.2d 941, 666 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 9, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant worked as the third assistant engineer on a merchant vessel for the employer, a steamship company. He [942]*942was notified in November 1995 that the annual shipping season which ended on December 20, 1995 would be extended for an indefinite period beyond the regular season. Claimant exercised his right under his union contract to take family leave from December 30, 1995 until the shipping season ended on February 9, 1996. He declined the option to work the extended shipping season. Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision ruling that claimant voluntarily left continuing employment by exercising his right to enjoy extended season relief and which disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Desmarais [Sweeney], 234 AD2d 839, appeal dismissed, lv denied 90 NY2d 876; Matter of Bahr [Sweeney], 234 AD2d 836, appeal dismissed, lv denied 90 NY2d 876). Contrary to claimant’s assertion, the fact that his union contract allowed him to decline employment during the extended shipping season without penalty is not dispositive of the question of whether claimant was properly disqualified from receiving benefits (see, id.).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, 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 October 9, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant worked as the third assistant engineer on a merchant vessel for the employer, a steamship company. He [942]*942was notified in November 1995 that the annual shipping season which ended on December 20, 1995 would be extended for an indefinite period beyond the regular season. Claimant exercised his right under his union contract to take family leave from December 30, 1995 until the shipping season ended on February 9, 1996. He declined the option to work the extended shipping season. Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision ruling that claimant voluntarily left continuing employment by exercising his right to enjoy extended season relief and which disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Desmarais [Sweeney], 234 AD2d 839, appeal dismissed, lv denied 90 NY2d 876; Matter of Bahr [Sweeney], 234 AD2d 836, appeal dismissed, lv denied 90 NY2d 876). Contrary to claimant’s assertion, the fact that his union contract allowed him to decline employment during the extended shipping season without penalty is not dispositive of the question of whether claimant was properly disqualified from receiving benefits (see, id.).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 941, 666 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-budnik-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack