In re the Claim of Hyman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Hyman

26 A.D.2d 978, 274 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3066

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 978 (In re the Claim of Hyman) 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 Hyman, 26 A.D.2d 978, 274 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board- which denied claimant benefits on the ground that he provoked his discharge thereby voluntarily leaving his employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1). Claimant’s hours of employment were from 9:0Ü a.m. to 5:30 p.m. He was responsible for opening his employer’s office and was discharged for reporting late to work. What constitutes “ good cause ” is a question of fact (Matter of Sperling [Catherwood], 20 A D 2d 584, mot. for lv. to app. den. 14 N Y 2d 481; Matter of Gilmore [Catherwood], 25 A D 2d 462) and the resolution of the factual issues is within the power of the board where, as here, it is supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Weinberger [Catherwood], 22 A D 2d 995). [979]*979It is our view, upon the record before us, the board could find that claimant on the last day of his employment was late reporting for work, despite the many warnings he had received from his employer, and that he failed to comply with a reasonable condition of his employment thereby leaving said employment voluntarily and without good cause. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board- which denied claimant benefits on the ground that he provoked his discharge thereby voluntarily leaving his employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1). Claimant’s hours of employment were from 9:0Ü a.m. to 5:30 p.m. He was responsible for opening his employer’s office and was discharged for reporting late to work. What constitutes “ good cause ” is a question of fact (Matter of Sperling [Catherwood], 20 A D 2d 584, mot. for lv. to app. den. 14 N Y 2d 481; Matter of Gilmore [Catherwood], 25 A D 2d 462) and the resolution of the factual issues is within the power of the board where, as here, it is supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Weinberger [Catherwood], 22 A D 2d 995). [979]*979It is our view, upon the record before us, the board could find that claimant on the last day of his employment was late reporting for work, despite the many warnings he had received from his employer, and that he failed to comply with a reasonable condition of his employment thereby leaving said employment voluntarily and without good cause. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 978, 274 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-hyman-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack