In re the Claim of Illerbrun

246 A.D.2d 722, 667 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 110
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 8, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 722 (In re the Claim of Illerbrun) 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 Illerbrun, 246 A.D.2d 722, 667 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 30, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision ruling that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause. The record reveals that when claimant returned to work for the employer after an absence, she was informed that although she would be placed back on the payroll, she was required to undergo a return-to-work physical examination and that she would not be assigned her regular duties until the results of that examination were received. She left her employment later that day because she was given no work to do, a situation that she found intolerable. Claimant failed to attend the physical examination that was scheduled for her on the next business day and failed to follow the employer’s directive to reschedule the examination, even though she was aware that her failure to do so would result in her discharge.

An employee who fails to take reasonable steps necessary to protect his or her continued employment is deemed to have voluntarily resigned without good cause (see, Matter of Bonilla [Sweeney], 233 AD2d 735). Under the circumstances presented here, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision denying claimant benefits on the ground that her reasons for leaving her employment were personal and noncompelling and charging her with a recoverable overpayment.

[723]*723Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., 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

Related

In re the Claim of Soto-Harold
55 A.D.3d 1119 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Culp
2 A.D.3d 949 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Coronel
301 A.D.2d 717 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Punzalan
260 A.D.2d 886 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Ginsberg
252 A.D.2d 702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 A.D.2d 722, 667 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-illerbrun-nyappdiv-1998.