In re the Claim of De Cicco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of De Cicco

24 A.D.2d 666, 261 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3659

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 666 (In re the Claim of De Cicco) 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 De Cicco, 24 A.D.2d 666, 261 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court.

The board found upon substantial evidence that during the five months of her employment claimant used both a manually operated comptometer and an electric comptometer; that when the latter was no longer available she expressed dissatisfaction to her supervisor and informed him that her production would suffer if she were restricted to a manually operated machine; and that although he told her simply to do the best she could, she remained dissatisfied and resigned. The board held her disqualified for benefits on the finding that she voluntarily left the employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1) and we find no basis upon which tve could disturb that determination. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Memorandum by the Court.

The board found upon substantial evidence that during the five months of her employment claimant used both a manually operated comptometer and an electric comptometer; that when the latter was no longer available she expressed dissatisfaction to her supervisor and informed him that her production would suffer if she were restricted to a manually operated machine; and that although he told her simply to do the best she could, she remained dissatisfied and resigned. The board held her disqualified for benefits on the finding that she voluntarily left the employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1) and we find no basis upon which tve could disturb that determination. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 666, 261 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-de-cicco-nyappdiv-1965.