In re the Claim of Klausner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Klausner

27 A.D.2d 776, 277 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4899

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 776 (In re the Claim of Klausner) 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 Klausner, 27 A.D.2d 776, 277 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J.

Appeal

by claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which denied benefits on the ground that the claimant left her employment without good cause. The claimant testified'that as a result of a change in the work system in her department she was unable to handle the work and she was not given sufficient assistance, that by reason thereof she was subjected to pressure, tension and aggravation which she feared would endanger her health and therefore she left her job. She did not consult a doctor. The Referee determined that this did not constitute good cause for leaving her position and the board affirmed such determination. (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1, par. [a].) It was within the board’s province to determine the weight and credibility of claimant’s testimony and we cannot, upon this record, disturb its finding that good cause was not shown. (Matter of Fusfeld [Catherwood], 19 A D 2d 678.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in a memorandum decision by Herlihy, J.

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

Herlihy, J.

Appeal

by claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which denied benefits on the ground that the claimant left her employment without good cause. The claimant testified'that as a result of a change in the work system in her department she was unable to handle the work and she was not given sufficient assistance, that by reason thereof she was subjected to pressure, tension and aggravation which she feared would endanger her health and therefore she left her job. She did not consult a doctor. The Referee determined that this did not constitute good cause for leaving her position and the board affirmed such determination. (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1, par. [a].) It was within the board’s province to determine the weight and credibility of claimant’s testimony and we cannot, upon this record, disturb its finding that good cause was not shown. (Matter of Fusfeld [Catherwood], 19 A D 2d 678.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in a memorandum decision by Herlihy, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 776, 277 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-klausner-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack