In re the Claim of Imre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Imre

27 A.D.2d 970, 279 N.Y.S.2d 213, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4344

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

DecidedApril 27, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 970 (In re the Claim of Imre) 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 Imre, 27 A.D.2d 970, 279 N.Y.S.2d 213, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Gabrielli, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disqualified claimant-appellant from receiving benefits on the ground she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant was employed as a keypunch operator and had been working an evening shift. When she was notified her tour of duty was changed to a daytime shift because the evening shift itself was being discontinued, she refused to accept the change. Her reason for refusal was that her mentally ill brother would be released from the hospital about every four months, for four days at a time and she would be responsible for him during daytime hours. It appears that the claimant had a sister living nearby and that there are other brothers and sisters who could assist. Whether claimant’s action constituted a voluntary leaving without good cause is a factual determination for the board. On the present record, we cannot disturb the board’s determination. (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Martino [Catherwood], 24 A D 2d 772; Matter of Tatem [Catherwood], 26 A D 2d 607.) Any preference for particular hours of employment, in the absence of truly compelling circumstances, does not constitute good cause either for refusing or leaving employment (Matter of Weiss [Catherwood], 26 A D 2d 851; Matter of Sybell [Catherwood], 14 A D 2d 981). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gabrielli, J.

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

Gabrielli, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disqualified claimant-appellant from receiving benefits on the ground she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant was employed as a keypunch operator and had been working an evening shift. When she was notified her tour of duty was changed to a daytime shift because the evening shift itself was being discontinued, she refused to accept the change. Her reason for refusal was that her mentally ill brother would be released from the hospital about every four months, for four days at a time and she would be responsible for him during daytime hours. It appears that the claimant had a sister living nearby and that there are other brothers and sisters who could assist. Whether claimant’s action constituted a voluntary leaving without good cause is a factual determination for the board. On the present record, we cannot disturb the board’s determination. (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Martino [Catherwood], 24 A D 2d 772; Matter of Tatem [Catherwood], 26 A D 2d 607.) Any preference for particular hours of employment, in the absence of truly compelling circumstances, does not constitute good cause either for refusing or leaving employment (Matter of Weiss [Catherwood], 26 A D 2d 851; Matter of Sybell [Catherwood], 14 A D 2d 981). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gabrielli, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 970, 279 N.Y.S.2d 213, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-imre-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack