In re the Claim of Guzenski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Guzenski

20 A.D.3d 801, 798 N.Y.S.2d 580, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7957

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

DecidedJuly 21, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 20 A.D.3d 801 (In re the Claim of Guzenski) 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 Guzenski, 20 A.D.3d 801, 798 N.Y.S.2d 580, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7957 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 28, 2004, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

Claimant lost his job at an automobile transmission shop after he failed to report for a scheduled shift. He filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits. Subsequently, at claimant’s urging, the employer agreed to rehire him. Claimant, however, did not report to work on the date specified or thereafter. The [802]*802Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately disqualified him from receiving benefits on the ground that he refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause, and adhered to this decision upon reconsideration. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. A claimant who refuses to accept a job for which he or she is reasonably suited by training and experience will be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Labor Law § 593 [2]; Matter of Spina [Commissioner of Labor], 7 AD3d 870, 870 [2004]; Matter of Turner [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d 915, 916 [2004]). Here, the employer’s representative testified that, after rehiring claimant for the same job he had performed previously upon conditions that were mutually acceptable, claimant inexplicably failed to report to work. Although claimant maintained that he did not accept the offer because the employer intended to pay him illegally, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Fronczak [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d 898, 899 [2004], appeal dismissed 3 NY3d 669 [2004]; Matter of Hill [Commissioner of Labor], 305 AD2d 843, 844 [2003]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, 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 July 28, 2004, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

Claimant lost his job at an automobile transmission shop after he failed to report for a scheduled shift. He filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits. Subsequently, at claimant’s urging, the employer agreed to rehire him. Claimant, however, did not report to work on the date specified or thereafter. The [802]*802Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately disqualified him from receiving benefits on the ground that he refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause, and adhered to this decision upon reconsideration. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. A claimant who refuses to accept a job for which he or she is reasonably suited by training and experience will be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Labor Law § 593 [2]; Matter of Spina [Commissioner of Labor], 7 AD3d 870, 870 [2004]; Matter of Turner [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d 915, 916 [2004]). Here, the employer’s representative testified that, after rehiring claimant for the same job he had performed previously upon conditions that were mutually acceptable, claimant inexplicably failed to report to work. Although claimant maintained that he did not accept the offer because the employer intended to pay him illegally, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Fronczak [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d 898, 899 [2004], appeal dismissed 3 NY3d 669 [2004]; Matter of Hill [Commissioner of Labor], 305 AD2d 843, 844 [2003]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.3d 801, 798 N.Y.S.2d 580, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-guzenski-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack