In re the Claim of Joseph

246 A.D.2d 944, 667 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 732
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 29, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 944 (In re the Claim of Joseph) 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 Joseph, 246 A.D.2d 944, 667 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 732 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 27, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant retired after 31 years of employment as a plant engineer at Memorial Sloan Battering Cancer Center, taking advantage of the employer’s early retirement incentive program. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. It has been held that participating in an early retirement incentive program when continuing work is available does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Reid [Delta Air Lines—Sweeney], 244 AD2d 675). While claimant testified that he opted for early retirement in part because he thought he [945]*945would be laid off, he was never told that his job was being eliminated. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Paul [New York City Bd. of Educ.—Sweeney], 242 AD2d 767).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Peters and Spain, 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

Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Employment Security Commission
681 S.E.2d 776 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2009)
Cp & L v. Employment SEC. Com'n
681 S.E.2d 776 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2009)
In re the Claim of Lucht
49 A.D.3d 1048 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Grushko
6 A.D.3d 858 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Claim of Cuomo-Perez
3 A.D.3d 777 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Claim of Autera
284 A.D.2d 767 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Claim of Sicurella
265 A.D.2d 778 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Moisides
264 A.D.2d 879 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Desjardins
262 A.D.2d 690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Szumelak
260 A.D.2d 884 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Campolattano
260 A.D.2d 711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Slezak
252 A.D.2d 644 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Jaworski
249 A.D.2d 869 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 A.D.2d 944, 667 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-joseph-nyappdiv-1998.