In re the Claim of Fisher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Fisher

168 A.D.2d 727, 563 N.Y.S.2d 574, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14788

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D.2d 727 (In re the Claim of Fisher) 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 Fisher, 168 A.D.2d 727, 563 N.Y.S.2d 574, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 11, 1989, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

There is no evidence in the record to support claimant’s contention that she was fired from her job as a group day-care facility assistant. In fact, the employer testified that claimant would have still worked for her had claimant not decided to leave her employment to start her own day-care business. Therefore, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s determination that claimant voluntarily left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons and without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Fontana [Levine], 53 AD2d 742; Matter of Sillan [French Tel. Cable Co.—Levine]), 53 AD2d 719).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Levine, Mercure 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 July 11, 1989, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

There is no evidence in the record to support claimant’s contention that she was fired from her job as a group day-care facility assistant. In fact, the employer testified that claimant would have still worked for her had claimant not decided to leave her employment to start her own day-care business. Therefore, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s determination that claimant voluntarily left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons and without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Fontana [Levine], 53 AD2d 742; Matter of Sillan [French Tel. Cable Co.—Levine]), 53 AD2d 719).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 727, 563 N.Y.S.2d 574, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-fisher-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack