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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 29, 1968·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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] benefits. 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] benefits. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum decision by Gabrielli, J.

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

29 A.D.2d 1019 (In re the Claim of Eisenberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related