In re the Claim of Farmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Farmer

166 A.D.2d 865, 562 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12818

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 865 (In re the Claim of Farmer) 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 Farmer, 166 A.D.2d 865, 562 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 13, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Although claimant argues that the necessity of retaining an attorney for a personal court matter compelled him to leave his job when he did, a witness for the employer testified that claimant left because he did not want to perform a certain duty as he had been instructed to do. Furthermore, he would have been finished at 3:30 p.m. and instead left at 1:00 p.m., and he admitted he told no one he was leaving. Given that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board in the exercise of its fact-finding power and on the basis of substantial evidence found against claimant, its conclusion that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause must be upheld (see, Matter of Weber [Catherwood], 32 AD2d 697).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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 December 13, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Although claimant argues that the necessity of retaining an attorney for a personal court matter compelled him to leave his job when he did, a witness for the employer testified that claimant left because he did not want to perform a certain duty as he had been instructed to do. Furthermore, he would have been finished at 3:30 p.m. and instead left at 1:00 p.m., and he admitted he told no one he was leaving. Given that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board in the exercise of its fact-finding power and on the basis of substantial evidence found against claimant, its conclusion that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause must be upheld (see, Matter of Weber [Catherwood], 32 AD2d 697).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 865, 562 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-farmer-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack