In re the Claim of Carney

236 A.D.2d 776, 653 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1979
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 27, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 776 (In re the Claim of Carney) 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 Carney, 236 A.D.2d 776, 653 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1979 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 29, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant resigned her position as a bookkeeper and applied for unemployment insurance benefits, listing "lack of work” as [777]*777the reason for leaving her employment. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she had voluntarily left her employment without good cause, assessing her with the loss of four benefit days on the ground that she had made willful false statements to obtain benefits. We affirm.

The record discloses that claimant chose to resign her position because she found it overly stressful, a situation which, in the absence of supporting medical evidence, does not constitute a compelling reason for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Ikehara [Hudacs], 196 AD2d 911, 912; see also, Matter of Colavito [Hartnett], 180 AD2d 883). The record further supports the finding that claimant made willful false statements to obtain benefits. Lack of work did not bring about the end of claimant’s employment, as evidenced by the employer’s having hired an individual to take over claimant’s position. Claimant was surely aware of this situation as she had stayed on in her position an additional two weeks in order to train her replacement. We conclude that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and it will not, accordingly, 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

Related

In re the Claim of Quintana
297 A.D.2d 857 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Claim of Yaminian
254 A.D.2d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
236 A.D.2d 776, 653 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-carney-nyappdiv-1997.