In re the Claim of Hoka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Hoka

53 A.D.2d 946, 385 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15738

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 946 (In re the Claim of Hoka) 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 Hoka, 53 A.D.2d 946, 385 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 4, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective February 21, 1975 because she had refused employment, for which she was reasonably fitted by training and experience, without good cause. It appears from claimant’s statements that she refused an offer of employment as a housekeeper because the salary for the position was too low and because it entailed some cleaning duties which she had not been required to undertake at her previous employment. However, substantial evidence supports the finding that she was generally suited by training and experience to perform such work and that the salary for the position was within the prevailing wages for á housekeeper. Since the existence of good cause for the refusal was a factual issue upon which the board made its findings based on substantial evidence, the decision of the board must be affirmed (Matter of De Witt [Levine], 50 AD2d 683). Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Larkin, Herlihy 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 August 4, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective February 21, 1975 because she had refused employment, for which she was reasonably fitted by training and experience, without good cause. It appears from claimant’s statements that she refused an offer of employment as a housekeeper because the salary for the position was too low and because it entailed some cleaning duties which she had not been required to undertake at her previous employment. However, substantial evidence supports the finding that she was generally suited by training and experience to perform such work and that the salary for the position was within the prevailing wages for á housekeeper. Since the existence of good cause for the refusal was a factual issue upon which the board made its findings based on substantial evidence, the decision of the board must be affirmed (Matter of De Witt [Levine], 50 AD2d 683). Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Larkin, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 946, 385 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-hoka-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack