In re the Claim of Krogman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Krogman

301 A.D.2d 718, 753 N.Y.S.2d 213, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21

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

DecidedJanuary 2, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 718 (In re the Claim of Krogman) 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 Krogman, 301 A.D.2d 718, 753 N.Y.S.2d 213, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance [719]*719Appeal Board, filed November 1, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment with a temporary employment agency without good cause. Although claimant’s former position as a branch manager had been eliminated while she was on maternity leave, upon her return she declined to accept employment as a recruiter. Although claimant was not offered her former position as a branch manager upon her return from maternity leave, the record establishes that such position had been eliminated. Claimant declined the employer’s offer of a recruiter position despite the fact that it was comparable pay and the potential to earn more of a commission than the managerial position. Under these circumstances and notwithstanding claimant’s contention that the employer violated the Family and Medical Leave Act, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause when continuing work was available (see e.g. Matter of Ezer [New York City Dept. of Gen. Servs.—Sweeney], 227 AD2d 778; Matter of Czamara [Hudacs], 184 AD2d 983).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, 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 [719]*719Appeal Board, filed November 1, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment with a temporary employment agency without good cause. Although claimant’s former position as a branch manager had been eliminated while she was on maternity leave, upon her return she declined to accept employment as a recruiter. Although claimant was not offered her former position as a branch manager upon her return from maternity leave, the record establishes that such position had been eliminated. Claimant declined the employer’s offer of a recruiter position despite the fact that it was comparable pay and the potential to earn more of a commission than the managerial position. Under these circumstances and notwithstanding claimant’s contention that the employer violated the Family and Medical Leave Act, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause when continuing work was available (see e.g. Matter of Ezer [New York City Dept. of Gen. Servs.—Sweeney], 227 AD2d 778; Matter of Czamara [Hudacs], 184 AD2d 983).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 718, 753 N.Y.S.2d 213, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-krogman-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack