In re the Claim of Dameron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Dameron

239 A.D.2d 656, 657 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4516

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

DecidedMay 1, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 656 (In re the Claim of Dameron) 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 Dameron, 239 A.D.2d 656, 657 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 4, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as an accounting clerk. She left her employment in order to move to California where her companion had moved to care for her own ailing father. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant had left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons. We affirm. With few exceptions, it has been held that caring for a sick relative is not a compelling reason for leaving employment (see, Matter of Edwards [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 895). Here, the sick individual in question was no relation to claimant and no medical evidence was presented to show that the presence of either claimant or her companion was medically necessary (see, Matter of Polax [New York City Dept. of Correction— Sweeney], 220 AD2d 919). The ruling that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is, accordingly, affirmed.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Casey, Yesawich Jr. 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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 4, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as an accounting clerk. She left her employment in order to move to California where her companion had moved to care for her own ailing father. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant had left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons. We affirm. With few exceptions, it has been held that caring for a sick relative is not a compelling reason for leaving employment (see, Matter of Edwards [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 895). Here, the sick individual in question was no relation to claimant and no medical evidence was presented to show that the presence of either claimant or her companion was medically necessary (see, Matter of Polax [New York City Dept. of Correction— Sweeney], 220 AD2d 919). The ruling that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is, accordingly, affirmed.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 656, 657 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-dameron-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack