In re the Claim of Fitzsimmons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Fitzsimmons

10 A.D.2d 738, 197 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11175

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 738 (In re the Claim of Fitzsimmons) 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 Fitzsimmons, 10 A.D.2d 738, 197 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which affirmed a determination that claimant was ineligible for benefits effective March 9, 1957, on the ground that he had, without good cause, refused employment for which he was reasonably fitted by training and experience. Claimant had been a taxi driver for 41 years. Upon referral to employment as a taxi driver he refused the employment because he was unwilling to drive a cab with an automatic transmission. Practically all of the taxicab operators in New York City have converted to automatic transmissions. It was found that claimant’s refusal to drive an automatic shift cab was a personal and non-compelling reason and did not constitute good cause for refusal of employment. The record warrants such a finding. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present —Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Claimant appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which affirmed a determination that claimant was ineligible for benefits effective March 9, 1957, on the ground that he had, without good cause, refused employment for which he was reasonably fitted by training and experience. Claimant had been a taxi driver for 41 years. Upon referral to employment as a taxi driver he refused the employment because he was unwilling to drive a cab with an automatic transmission. Practically all of the taxicab operators in New York City have converted to automatic transmissions. It was found that claimant’s refusal to drive an automatic shift cab was a personal and non-compelling reason and did not constitute good cause for refusal of employment. The record warrants such a finding. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present —Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 738, 197 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-fitzsimmons-nyappdiv-1960.