In re the Claim of Kroo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Kroo

27 A.D.2d 782, 277 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4862

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 782 (In re the Claim of Kroo) 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 Kroo, 27 A.D.2d 782, 277 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Staley, Jr., J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disqualified claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant was employed by the respondent for approximately three and one-half years and, in April, 1965, she requested her annual two-week vacation for the following July. Her supervisor denied the request because claimant’s seniority was not sufficient to entitle her to the July vacation. Claimant alleges that she was told that if she did not take the vacation allotted to her, she was fired. On May 26, 1965, claimant’s father died and she was granted a leave of absence until June 7, at which time she requested permission to take her vacation, which she took until June 20. She failed to return to work on June 21, 1965. Claimant alleged that she failed to return to work because she thought she was fired. The employer had no knowledge of the termination of her employment, expected her to return to work on June 21 and a position was available for her if she returned. There is substantial evidence in the record to establish that claimant was not discharged, but voluntarily separated herself from her employment, and that such separation was without good cause. What constitutes “good cause” is a factual question and thus within the exclusive province of the board, if its determination is supported by substan[783]*783tial evidence. (Labor Law, §§ 593, 623; Matter of Rink [Catherwood], 25 A D 2d 790.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in a memorandum decision by Staley, Jr., J.

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

Staley, Jr., J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disqualified claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant was employed by the respondent for approximately three and one-half years and, in April, 1965, she requested her annual two-week vacation for the following July. Her supervisor denied the request because claimant’s seniority was not sufficient to entitle her to the July vacation. Claimant alleges that she was told that if she did not take the vacation allotted to her, she was fired. On May 26, 1965, claimant’s father died and she was granted a leave of absence until June 7, at which time she requested permission to take her vacation, which she took until June 20. She failed to return to work on June 21, 1965. Claimant alleged that she failed to return to work because she thought she was fired. The employer had no knowledge of the termination of her employment, expected her to return to work on June 21 and a position was available for her if she returned. There is substantial evidence in the record to establish that claimant was not discharged, but voluntarily separated herself from her employment, and that such separation was without good cause. What constitutes “good cause” is a factual question and thus within the exclusive province of the board, if its determination is supported by substan[783]*783tial evidence. (Labor Law, §§ 593, 623; Matter of Rink [Catherwood], 25 A D 2d 790.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in a memorandum decision by Staley, Jr., J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 782, 277 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-kroo-nyappdiv-1967.