In re the Claim of Eisenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Eisenberg

29 A.D.2d 1019, 289 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4142

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

DecidedApril 29, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 1019 (In re the Claim of Eisenberg) 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 Eisenberg, 29 A.D.2d 1019, 289 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Gabrielli, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 13, 1967, disqualifying claimant from unemployment insurance benefits effective September 24, 1966. After working some three weeks as a clerk-typist, claimant resigned because, as the board has found, she was “dissatisfied due to the fact that there was practically no work” for her to perform. “‘The primary purpose of the law is to ease the hardship of involuntary unemployment due to economic conditions or other conditions beyond the control of the employee ’ ” (Matter of Shanley [Catherwood], 27 A D 2d 496, 499; Labor Law, § 501). Upon the findings made by the board, which find support in the record, the claimant’s unilateral determination to cease her employment for her oft-stated reason of boredom, does not qualify her to receive [1020]*1020benefits. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum decision by Gabrielli, J.

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

Gabrielli, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 13, 1967, disqualifying claimant from unemployment insurance benefits effective September 24, 1966. After working some three weeks as a clerk-typist, claimant resigned because, as the board has found, she was “dissatisfied due to the fact that there was practically no work” for her to perform. “‘The primary purpose of the law is to ease the hardship of involuntary unemployment due to economic conditions or other conditions beyond the control of the employee ’ ” (Matter of Shanley [Catherwood], 27 A D 2d 496, 499; Labor Law, § 501). Upon the findings made by the board, which find support in the record, the claimant’s unilateral determination to cease her employment for her oft-stated reason of boredom, does not qualify her to receive [1020]*1020benefits. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum decision by Gabrielli, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 1019, 289 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-eisenberg-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack