In re the Claim of Gervits

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Gervits

247 A.D.2d 749, 668 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1563

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 749 (In re the Claim of Gervits) 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 Gervits, 247 A.D.2d 749, 668 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 12, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant left her employment as a clerk to spend a month at a mineral spa in Czechoslovakia where, according to her physician, treatment was available for her gastrointestinal problems. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant had left her job for personal and noncompelling reasons. We affirm. Evidence presented at claimant’s administrative hearing disclosed that claimant’s trip could accurately be characterized as a vacation and that the timing of her departure, during the employer’s busiest season, was motivated by discounted travel fares rather than medical necessity. We conclude that the Board’s decision that claimant left her employment under disqualifying circumstances is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Klein [Audits & Surveys Worldwide — Sweeney], 232 AD2d 720; Matter of Caraballo [Catherwood], 25 AD2d 580).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, 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 February 12, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant left her employment as a clerk to spend a month at a mineral spa in Czechoslovakia where, according to her physician, treatment was available for her gastrointestinal problems. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant had left her job for personal and noncompelling reasons. We affirm. Evidence presented at claimant’s administrative hearing disclosed that claimant’s trip could accurately be characterized as a vacation and that the timing of her departure, during the employer’s busiest season, was motivated by discounted travel fares rather than medical necessity. We conclude that the Board’s decision that claimant left her employment under disqualifying circumstances is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Klein [Audits & Surveys Worldwide — Sweeney], 232 AD2d 720; Matter of Caraballo [Catherwood], 25 AD2d 580).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 749, 668 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-gervits-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack