In re the Claim of Feinberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Feinberg

211 A.D.2d 934, 621 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 199

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 934 (In re the Claim of Feinberg) 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 Feinberg, 211 A.D.2d 934, 621 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 7, 1993, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

The Board found that claimant left his employment to attend a training program and that claimant’s temporary job had not yet ended; there was, therefore, continuing work available for claimant. Because leaving employment to attend school is considered a voluntary leaving without good cause, the Board found that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Under these circumstances and given the record before us, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision and it must, accordingly, be upheld. Claimant’s remaining arguments have been examined and rejected for lack of merit.

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 September 7, 1993, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

The Board found that claimant left his employment to attend a training program and that claimant’s temporary job had not yet ended; there was, therefore, continuing work available for claimant. Because leaving employment to attend school is considered a voluntary leaving without good cause, the Board found that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Under these circumstances and given the record before us, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision and it must, accordingly, be upheld. Claimant’s remaining arguments have been examined and rejected for lack of merit.

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)

211 A.D.2d 934, 621 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-feinberg-nyappdiv-1995.