In re the Claim of Kansky

27 A.D.2d 887, 277 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4698
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 9, 1967
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 887 (In re the Claim of Kansky) 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 Kansky, 27 A.D.2d 887, 277 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal [888]*888by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying her from receiving benefits effective July 29, 1965, on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1, par. [a]) and ruling that she willfully misrepresented to obtain benefits for which a forfeiture of 20 effective days was imposed (Labor Law, § 594). The board has found that claimant, a bakery sales clerk, left her employment for personal reasons, particularly because she was unable to obtain her employer’s permission to get a Saturday and Sunday off, her normal working days and the employer’s busiest days, and additionally because she felt that she needed permanent work and that as temporary replacement she would soon be released from employment. Here claimant urges that she was dismissed by her employer. The resolution of the conflict as to the cause of claimant’s separation from employment and whether such separation was for good cause are factual determinations and thus within the sole province of the board if suppported by substantial evidence (e.g., Matter of Frankel [Catherwood], 26 A D 2d 866; Matter of Gilmore [Catherwood], 25 A D 2d 462). On the instant record there is no basis to disturb the board’s determination of these issues. Similarly the board could properly find that claimant in indicating that she lost her job because “laid off slow no work” made a willful misrepresentation to obtain benefits (e.g., Matter of Clemente [Catherwood], 27 A D 2d 676 and cases cited therein). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

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

Related

In re Magazzu
57 A.D.2d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
In re the Claim of Wilson
52 A.D.2d 1025 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re the Claim of Leverich
52 A.D.2d 992 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re the Claim of Chalman
52 A.D.2d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re the Claim of Jacynicz
50 A.D.2d 972 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
In re the Claim of Williams
50 A.D.2d 975 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
In re the Claim of Christophe
50 A.D.2d 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
In re the Claim of Kutno
50 A.D.2d 655 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
In re the Claim of Steinhorn
49 A.D.2d 996 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
In re the Claim of Bomwell
49 A.D.2d 790 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 A.D.2d 887, 277 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-kansky-nyappdiv-1967.