In re the Claim of Calton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Calton

221 A.D.2d 792, 633 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11790

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 792 (In re the Claim of Calton) 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 Calton, 221 A.D.2d 792, 633 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11790 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 30, 1994, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

From October 15, 1990 to November 2, 1990, while he was collecting unemployment insurance benefits, claimant worked as a laborer. He quit this job because his employer criticized his work. Claimant failed to inform the local unemployment insurance office that he had obtained this job or that he left it. In view of these undisputed facts, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was not totally unemployed from October 15, 1990 to November 2, 1990 and that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Accordingly, the Board’s decision must be affirmed.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., 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 November 30, 1994, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

From October 15, 1990 to November 2, 1990, while he was collecting unemployment insurance benefits, claimant worked as a laborer. He quit this job because his employer criticized his work. Claimant failed to inform the local unemployment insurance office that he had obtained this job or that he left it. In view of these undisputed facts, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was not totally unemployed from October 15, 1990 to November 2, 1990 and that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Accordingly, the Board’s decision must be affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 792, 633 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-calton-nyappdiv-1995.