In re the Claim of Faillace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Faillace

308 A.D.2d 654, 764 N.Y.S.2d 373, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9548

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 654 (In re the Claim of Faillace) 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 Faillace, 308 A.D.2d 654, 764 N.Y.S.2d 373, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 3, 2003, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she declined an offer of suitable employment without good cause. Claimant rejected an employment agency’s offer of a temporary administrative assistant job for which she was qualified, claiming that the 30-minute commute was too far. Rejection of an otherwise suitable offer of employment based upon length of a commute has been held not to constitute good cause within the meaning of the Labor Law (see Matter of Yates [Commissioner of Labor], 250 AD2d 917 [1998]). Although claimant indicated at the hearing that her refusal to accept the temporary position was due to her efforts in securing full-time employment, such motivation does not constitute good cause for refusing a temporary employment (see Matter of Corcoran [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 969 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 506 [2003]; Matter of Ruggieri [Commissioner of Labor], 273 AD2d 723 [2000]). To the extent that claimant now asserts that the wages offered were less than the prevailing wages for a similar position in her locality, her testimony establishes that she considered the salary range to be acceptable (see Matter of Lowery [Hudacs], 201 AD2d 814 [1994]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, 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 February 3, 2003, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she declined an offer of suitable employment without good cause. Claimant rejected an employment agency’s offer of a temporary administrative assistant job for which she was qualified, claiming that the 30-minute commute was too far. Rejection of an otherwise suitable offer of employment based upon length of a commute has been held not to constitute good cause within the meaning of the Labor Law (see Matter of Yates [Commissioner of Labor], 250 AD2d 917 [1998]). Although claimant indicated at the hearing that her refusal to accept the temporary position was due to her efforts in securing full-time employment, such motivation does not constitute good cause for refusing a temporary employment (see Matter of Corcoran [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 969 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 506 [2003]; Matter of Ruggieri [Commissioner of Labor], 273 AD2d 723 [2000]). To the extent that claimant now asserts that the wages offered were less than the prevailing wages for a similar position in her locality, her testimony establishes that she considered the salary range to be acceptable (see Matter of Lowery [Hudacs], 201 AD2d 814 [1994]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 654, 764 N.Y.S.2d 373, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-faillace-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack