In re the Claim of Jarzabek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Jarzabek

176 A.D.2d 987, 574 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12383

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

DecidedOctober 3, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 176 A.D.2d 987 (In re the Claim of Jarzabek) 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 Jarzabek, 176 A.D.2d 987, 574 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 17, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

We reject claimant’s contention that the Administrative Law Judge improperly denied his request to subpoena various witnesses. The requested medical testimony was unnecessary insofar as it was accepted that claimant had "medical disabilities” and documentation to that effect was admitted at the hearing. As to the requested testimony of two correction officers, that concerned the training experience of those believed to be fit for duty rather than of those with medical limitations. Therefore, that testimony was also irrelevant (see, Matter of Phillips [Hartnett], 161 AD2d 1067). As to the merits of claimant’s case, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant voluntarily left his job without good cause (see, Matter of Konjevic [Ross], 80 AD2d 696). It was for the Board to determine whether claimant had reasonable grounds to believe that his personal safety was endangered (see, Matter of Fried [Ross] 54 AD2d 521). The conflicting testimony presented the Board with questions of fact and credibility which were within its province to resolve (see, Matter of Baker [Hartnett], 147 AD2d 790, appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 714). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Levine and Mercure, 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

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 17, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

We reject claimant’s contention that the Administrative Law Judge improperly denied his request to subpoena various witnesses. The requested medical testimony was unnecessary insofar as it was accepted that claimant had "medical disabilities” and documentation to that effect was admitted at the hearing. As to the requested testimony of two correction officers, that concerned the training experience of those believed to be fit for duty rather than of those with medical limitations. Therefore, that testimony was also irrelevant (see, Matter of Phillips [Hartnett], 161 AD2d 1067). As to the merits of claimant’s case, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant voluntarily left his job without good cause (see, Matter of Konjevic [Ross], 80 AD2d 696). It was for the Board to determine whether claimant had reasonable grounds to believe that his personal safety was endangered (see, Matter of Fried [Ross] 54 AD2d 521). The conflicting testimony presented the Board with questions of fact and credibility which were within its province to resolve (see, Matter of Baker [Hartnett], 147 AD2d 790, appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 714). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 987, 574 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-jarzabek-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack