In re the Claim of Denson

34 A.D.3d 893, 823 N.Y.S.2d 585
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 2, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 893 (In re the Claim of Denson) 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 Denson, 34 A.D.3d 893, 823 N.Y.S.2d 585 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 20, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant voluntarily left her employment as a customer service representative without good cause. The record establishes that claimant did not return to work following her disability and maternity leave because she could not find childcare for her children. Although the employer had sent a letter to claimant in May 2004 shortly after her child was born which provided a telephone number for a child-care referral service to assist in finding a child-care provider, claimant admitted that she never contacted the referral service. Furthermore, claimant testified that she was available to return to work in October 2004. She failed, however, to respond to the employer’s letter notifying her that she would be deemed to have resigned from her job unless she returned to work or contacted her employer by November 19, 2004. In view of the foregoing, and given the length of her leave from January 2004 through November 2004 and the fact that she secured [894]*894childcare shortly after her discharge, we find no reason to disturb the.Board’s decision that claimant failed to take reasonable steps to protect her employment (see Matter of Wilson [Suffolk County Water Auth.—Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 673 [2003]; Matter of Wilder [Commissioner of Labor], 271 AD2d 789 [2000]; Matter of Vitale [Commissioner of Labor], 263 AD2d 758 [1999]).

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Feters, Spain and Carpinello, 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

Matter of Bury (Consumer Reports Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)
2024 NY Slip Op 04855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Matter of Kupiec (Commissioner of Labor)
2021 NY Slip Op 02209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
In re the Claim of Cottone
109 A.D.3d 1044 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 A.D.3d 893, 823 N.Y.S.2d 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-denson-nyappdiv-2006.