In re the Claim of De Jesus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of De Jesus

210 A.D.2d 716, 621 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12765

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 716 (In re the Claim of De Jesus) 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 Jesus, 210 A.D.2d 716, 621 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 29, 1993, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Upon review of the record, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that claimant left his position as a parking lot attendant without good cause for personal and noncompelling reasons. Significantly, claimant testified at his hearing that he left his employment because of a change in his work schedule and he knew that he was not being discharged. We note that the number of hours claimant was to work would have remained the same and claimant failed to demonstrate that his refusal to accede to the employer’s proposed schedule change was based on any compelling circumstances. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, 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 July 29, 1993, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Upon review of the record, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that claimant left his position as a parking lot attendant without good cause for personal and noncompelling reasons. Significantly, claimant testified at his hearing that he left his employment because of a change in his work schedule and he knew that he was not being discharged. We note that the number of hours claimant was to work would have remained the same and claimant failed to demonstrate that his refusal to accede to the employer’s proposed schedule change was based on any compelling circumstances. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 716, 621 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-de-jesus-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack