In re the Claim of Frankel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Frankel

26 A.D.2d 866, 273 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3279

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 866 (In re the Claim of Frankel) 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 Frankel, 26 A.D.2d 866, 273 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3279 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying claimant benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1). What constitutes “good cause” is factual and thus within the exclusive province of the board if its determination is supported by substantial evidence (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Gilmore [Catherwood], 25 A D 2d 462; Matter of Sperling [Catherwood], 20 A D 2d 584, mot. for lv. to app. den. 14 N Y 2d 481). In the instant case there is substantial evidence upon which the board could find that claimant, before she decided it was necessary to terminate her employment, did not make a reasonable effort to obtain suitable living quarters convenient to her employer’s establishment and that therefore her separation from employment was voluntary and not for good cause. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur; Taylor, J., not voting.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying claimant benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1). What constitutes “good cause” is factual and thus within the exclusive province of the board if its determination is supported by substantial evidence (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Gilmore [Catherwood], 25 A D 2d 462; Matter of Sperling [Catherwood], 20 A D 2d 584, mot. for lv. to app. den. 14 N Y 2d 481). In the instant case there is substantial evidence upon which the board could find that claimant, before she decided it was necessary to terminate her employment, did not make a reasonable effort to obtain suitable living quarters convenient to her employer’s establishment and that therefore her separation from employment was voluntary and not for good cause. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur; Taylor, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 866, 273 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-frankel-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack