In re the Claim of Higgins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Higgins

49 A.D.2d 980, 374 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11294

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

DecidedOctober 30, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 980 (In re the Claim of Higgins) 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 Higgins, 49 A.D.2d 980, 374 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 16, 1974, which affirmed the decision of a referee disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective May 7, 1974 on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Claimant resigned because of his conscientious objection to the employer’s use of atomic energy and his concern over the use of guns in connection with plant security. Substantial evidence supports the board’s finding that these reasons were personal and noncompelling, particularly since claimant was not working in a position where he directly contributed to the production of atomic energy, and was offered an opportunity to continue working in another capacity. Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Koreman, Larkin and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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 September 16, 1974, which affirmed the decision of a referee disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective May 7, 1974 on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Claimant resigned because of his conscientious objection to the employer’s use of atomic energy and his concern over the use of guns in connection with plant security. Substantial evidence supports the board’s finding that these reasons were personal and noncompelling, particularly since claimant was not working in a position where he directly contributed to the production of atomic energy, and was offered an opportunity to continue working in another capacity. Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Koreman, Larkin and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 980, 374 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-higgins-nyappdiv-1975.