In re the Claim of Haynes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Haynes

30 A.D.2d 722, 291 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3568

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

DecidedJune 27, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 722 (In re the Claim of Haynes) 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 Haynes, 30 A.D.2d 722, 291 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disqualified claimant from benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The evidence that claimant quit his job because he was dissatisfied with the wages paid is not disputed. He was referred to the position, that of a porter, by the State employment office, which informed him that the pay was $1.50 per hour but, by reason of the good impression that he made, the employer hired him at $1.75 and two weeks later raised the rate to $2 and after claimant’s wife came in to help him employed her part time at $35 per week. When told he did work that was not required of him, he said that he was “fussy” and had to do things his way. As we recently said, “ The resolution of the conflict as to the cause of claimant’s separation from employment and whether such separation was for good cause are factual determinations and thus within the sole province of the board if supported by substantial evidence (e.g., Matter of Frankel [Catherwood], 26 A D 2d 866; Matter of Gilmore [Catherwood], 25 A D 2d 462).” (Matter of Kansky [Catherwood], 27 A D 2d 887, 888.) Dissatisfaction with the wage paid does not ipso facto constitute good cause. (Matter of Campbell [Catherwood], 23 A D 2d 515.) The argument in appellant’s brief proceeds largely on factual grounds as to which the board, in the exercise of its fact-finding power has, upon substantial evidence, held against the claimant, with the result, of course, that we may not overturn the hoard’s conclusion. (Matter of Youshock [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 759.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Hibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Habrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disqualified claimant from benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The evidence that claimant quit his job because he was dissatisfied with the wages paid is not disputed. He was referred to the position, that of a porter, by the State employment office, which informed him that the pay was $1.50 per hour but, by reason of the good impression that he made, the employer hired him at $1.75 and two weeks later raised the rate to $2 and after claimant’s wife came in to help him employed her part time at $35 per week. When told he did work that was not required of him, he said that he was “fussy” and had to do things his way. As we recently said, “ The resolution of the conflict as to the cause of claimant’s separation from employment and whether such separation was for good cause are factual determinations and thus within the sole province of the board if supported by substantial evidence (e.g., Matter of Frankel [Catherwood], 26 A D 2d 866; Matter of Gilmore [Catherwood], 25 A D 2d 462).” (Matter of Kansky [Catherwood], 27 A D 2d 887, 888.) Dissatisfaction with the wage paid does not ipso facto constitute good cause. (Matter of Campbell [Catherwood], 23 A D 2d 515.) The argument in appellant’s brief proceeds largely on factual grounds as to which the board, in the exercise of its fact-finding power has, upon substantial evidence, held against the claimant, with the result, of course, that we may not overturn the hoard’s conclusion. (Matter of Youshock [Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 759.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Hibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Habrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 722, 291 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-haynes-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack