In re the Claim of Hanukov

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Hanukov

260 A.D.2d 684, 687 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3282

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

DecidedApril 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 684 (In re the Claim of Hanukov) 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 Hanukov, 260 A.D.2d 684, 687 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 11, 1997 and August 24, 1998, which, inter alia, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant challenges the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s conclusion that she voluntarily left her position at a pharmacy without good cause after she quit because the employer could no longer accommodate her requests that her work schedule be arranged around her school schedule. Notably, this Court has held that “voluntarily leaving employment for the purpose of attending school does not constitute good cause under the Labor Law” (Matter of Carapella [Commis[685]*685sioner of Labor], 255 AD2d 676; see, Matter of Kucich [Hudacs], 204 AD2d 929) and neither does “dissatisfaction with one’s work schedule” (Matter of Borlang [B & M Sports — Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 632). Under the circumstances, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s assessment of credibility and the inferences drawn from the evidence presented (see, Matter of Falco [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 711, Iv denied 92 NY2d 815).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

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

—Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 11, 1997 and August 24, 1998, which, inter alia, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant challenges the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s conclusion that she voluntarily left her position at a pharmacy without good cause after she quit because the employer could no longer accommodate her requests that her work schedule be arranged around her school schedule. Notably, this Court has held that “voluntarily leaving employment for the purpose of attending school does not constitute good cause under the Labor Law” (Matter of Carapella [Commis[685]*685sioner of Labor], 255 AD2d 676; see, Matter of Kucich [Hudacs], 204 AD2d 929) and neither does “dissatisfaction with one’s work schedule” (Matter of Borlang [B & M Sports — Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 632). Under the circumstances, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s assessment of credibility and the inferences drawn from the evidence presented (see, Matter of Falco [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 711, Iv denied 92 NY2d 815).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 684, 687 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-hanukov-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack