In re the Claim of Imperati

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Imperati

25 A.D.2d 576, 266 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5008

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 576 (In re the Claim of Imperati) 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 Imperati, 25 A.D.2d 576, 266 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding that she was disqualified from receiving benefits because of voluntary leaving of employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, suibd. 1), that her benefits were to be forfeited for 24 effective days because of a willful misrepresentation to obtain benefits (Labor Law, § 594) and that she was overpaid the sum of $50, which was ruled recoverable. The question of “good cause” is factual, and thus if the board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, it must be upheld (Labor Law, § 623; e.g., Matter of Sperling [Catherwood], 20 A D 2d 584, mot. for lv. to app. den. 14 N Y 2d 481). Here the board could properly find that claimant provoked her discharge by taking, after due warning, an excessive vacation to travel to Europe in disregard of the employer’s rules and that, therefore, her separation from employment was not for good cause. 'The board was not compelled to accept claimant’s contention that she took the vacation for health reasons (Matter of Fusfeld [Catherwood], 19 A D 2d 678). Similarly the board could find that when claimant indicated that she lost her last employment because it was “temporary”, she made a willfully false statement to obtain benefits (Matter of Vick [Catherwood], 12 A D 2d 120). Decision affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding that she was disqualified from receiving benefits because of voluntary leaving of employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, suibd. 1), that her benefits were to be forfeited for 24 effective days because of a willful misrepresentation to obtain benefits (Labor Law, § 594) and that she was overpaid the sum of $50, which was ruled recoverable. The question of “good cause” is factual, and thus if the board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, it must be upheld (Labor Law, § 623; e.g., Matter of Sperling [Catherwood], 20 A D 2d 584, mot. for lv. to app. den. 14 N Y 2d 481). Here the board could properly find that claimant provoked her discharge by taking, after due warning, an excessive vacation to travel to Europe in disregard of the employer’s rules and that, therefore, her separation from employment was not for good cause. 'The board was not compelled to accept claimant’s contention that she took the vacation for health reasons (Matter of Fusfeld [Catherwood], 19 A D 2d 678). Similarly the board could find that when claimant indicated that she lost her last employment because it was “temporary”, she made a willfully false statement to obtain benefits (Matter of Vick [Catherwood], 12 A D 2d 120). Decision affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 576, 266 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-imperati-nyappdiv-1966.