In re the Claim of Eilers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Eilers

213 A.D.2d 955, 624 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3341

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 955 (In re the Claim of Eilers) 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 Eilers, 213 A.D.2d 955, 624 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 4, 1993, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a receptionist by the employer and was required as a part of her employment duties to report for work on either Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day or New Year’s Day. Claimant chose New Year’s Day but subsequently attempted to find a substitute to work for her during part of the New Year’s Day shift. We find substantial evidence to [956]*956support the Board’s finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment after she was unable to arrange for a substitute.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 November 4, 1993, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a receptionist by the employer and was required as a part of her employment duties to report for work on either Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day or New Year’s Day. Claimant chose New Year’s Day but subsequently attempted to find a substitute to work for her during part of the New Year’s Day shift. We find substantial evidence to [956]*956support the Board’s finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment after she was unable to arrange for a substitute.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 955, 624 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-eilers-nyappdiv-1995.