In re the Claim of Goldberg

53 A.D.2d 731, 384 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13505
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 3, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 731 (In re the Claim of Goldberg) 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 Goldberg, 53 A.D.2d 731, 384 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of [732]*732the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 10, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits on the ground she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant worked for her last employer as a billing and typing clerk for nine days when she quit. Her place of employment was located at 20 West 20th Street in New York City. Her hours of employment were from 9:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., five days a week. She worked behind a glass enclosure where people coming in the door from the street could see her. The door was not locked and people would sometimes come in from the street asking for information. Claimant testified that she was frightened because she had been mugged once in a subway and she asked the employer to have the door locked so that one would have to knock before entering. The employer testified that he had had no problems for 70 years and expected none. He refused to lock the door and claimant left her employment. The record reveals she was never alone in the room, since there was always another employee present. The board found that claimant left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons which subjected her to disqualification for receiving benefits. Good cause for leaving is a question of fact for the board to determine. Since there is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the board’s determination, we must affirm. Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Mahoney and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Tannariello v. FED'N OF PUBLIC EMPS.
437 So. 2d 799 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 A.D.2d 731, 384 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-goldberg-nyappdiv-1976.