In re the Claim of Guzenski

20 A.D.3d 801, 798 N.Y.S.2d 580, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7957
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 21, 2005·Published·Cited by 9 cases

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] Unemployment 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

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).

20 A.D.3d 801 (In re the Claim of Guzenski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Claim of Southern-Penn
83 A.D.3d 1318 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re the Claim of Ruiz
70 A.D.3d 1098 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re the Claim of Stehnach
62 A.D.3d 1192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Schirra
45 A.D.3d 1067 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re the Claim of Newman
43 A.D.3d 592 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re Claim of Scuderi
40 A.D.3d 1234 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re the Claim of Rogers
38 A.D.3d 1117 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re Kurtz
37 A.D.3d 895 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re the Claim of Fair
27 A.D.3d 841 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)