In re the Claim of Holt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Holt

178 A.D.2d 863, 578 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16846

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 178 A.D.2d 863 (In re the Claim of Holt) 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 Holt, 178 A.D.2d 863, 578 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 30, 1990, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

The employer’s representative testified that claimant was informed when he was hired that he would be working alone after his training was finished. Although claimant denied that he was ever so informed, this presented a question of credibility for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve (see, Matter of Baker [Hartnett], 147 AD2d 790, appeal dis[864]*864missed 74 NY2d 714). There is therefore substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant was aware of the conditions of his employment when he was hired and that his reasons for quitting were personal and noncompelling (see, Matter of Siff [Catherwood], 32 AD2d 699). There is also substantial evidence in the record to support the further conclusion that claimant willfully made false statements to obtain unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806) and that the benefits he received were therefore recoverable (Labor Law § 597 [4]).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ. 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 November 30, 1990, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

The employer’s representative testified that claimant was informed when he was hired that he would be working alone after his training was finished. Although claimant denied that he was ever so informed, this presented a question of credibility for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve (see, Matter of Baker [Hartnett], 147 AD2d 790, appeal dis[864]*864missed 74 NY2d 714). There is therefore substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant was aware of the conditions of his employment when he was hired and that his reasons for quitting were personal and noncompelling (see, Matter of Siff [Catherwood], 32 AD2d 699). There is also substantial evidence in the record to support the further conclusion that claimant willfully made false statements to obtain unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806) and that the benefits he received were therefore recoverable (Labor Law § 597 [4]).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 863, 578 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-holt-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack