In re the Claim of Frisina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Frisina

235 A.D.2d 887, 653 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 535

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 887 (In re the Claim of Frisina) 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 Frisina, 235 A.D.2d 887, 653 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 26, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a funeral director at a funeral home in which he owned a one-half interest. Claimant left this [888]*888employment after selling his interest therein to his business partner. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. We affirm. A claimant who has sold his interest in an employing corporation without a compelling reason to do so will be found to have left his employment under disqualifying circumstances (see, Matter of Ballard [Hartnett], 176 AD2d 428, 429). In this matter, substantial evidence supports the determination that there was no compelling motivation, either economic or otherwise, for claimant’s sale of his interest in the funeral home. While claimant testified to the contrary, such conflict constituted a question of fact for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Tepper [Sweeney], 228 AD2d 856; Matter of Sonin [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 790).

Mikoll, J. P., White, Casey, Peters and Spain, 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 October 26, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a funeral director at a funeral home in which he owned a one-half interest. Claimant left this [888]*888employment after selling his interest therein to his business partner. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. We affirm. A claimant who has sold his interest in an employing corporation without a compelling reason to do so will be found to have left his employment under disqualifying circumstances (see, Matter of Ballard [Hartnett], 176 AD2d 428, 429). In this matter, substantial evidence supports the determination that there was no compelling motivation, either economic or otherwise, for claimant’s sale of his interest in the funeral home. While claimant testified to the contrary, such conflict constituted a question of fact for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Tepper [Sweeney], 228 AD2d 856; Matter of Sonin [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 790).

Mikoll, J. P., White, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 887, 653 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-frisina-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack