In re the Claim of Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Hill

305 A.D.2d 843, 759 N.Y.S.2d 596, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5502

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

DecidedMay 15, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 843 (In re the Claim of Hill) 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 Hill, 305 A.D.2d 843, 759 N.Y.S.2d 596, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 19, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she refused an offer of suitable employment.

Claimant, who worked for an employment agency, refused the agency’s offer to work as a receptionist for a clinic where she had worked before, stating that she was currently employed at a higher rate of pay. In fact, she was not working at the time but, rather, was job searching. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause (see Matter of [844]*844Di Stefano [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 950 [2003]; Matter of Davis [Commissioner of Labor], 297 AD2d 851 [2002]). To the extent that claimant maintained, contrary to the testimony of representatives of the employer, that no offers of employment were conveyed to her because she had departed from her house on the day in question prior to the call from the agency offering her the position, this created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Di Stefano [Commissioner of Labor], supra; Matter of Valerio [Commissioner of Labor], 279 AD2d 938 [2001]; Matter of Burnett [Hudacs], 189 AD2d 1053 [1993]).

Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Rose, 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 19, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she refused an offer of suitable employment.

Claimant, who worked for an employment agency, refused the agency’s offer to work as a receptionist for a clinic where she had worked before, stating that she was currently employed at a higher rate of pay. In fact, she was not working at the time but, rather, was job searching. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause (see Matter of [844]*844Di Stefano [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 950 [2003]; Matter of Davis [Commissioner of Labor], 297 AD2d 851 [2002]). To the extent that claimant maintained, contrary to the testimony of representatives of the employer, that no offers of employment were conveyed to her because she had departed from her house on the day in question prior to the call from the agency offering her the position, this created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Di Stefano [Commissioner of Labor], supra; Matter of Valerio [Commissioner of Labor], 279 AD2d 938 [2001]; Matter of Burnett [Hudacs], 189 AD2d 1053 [1993]).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 843, 759 N.Y.S.2d 596, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-hill-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack