In re the Claim of Larkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Larkin

235 A.D.2d 869, 653 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 523

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 869 (In re the Claim of Larkin) 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 Larkin, 235 A.D.2d 869, 653 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 2, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

The record discloses that claimant notified his employer on May 11, 1995 that he would not be returning to work because he planned to enter a drug rehabilitation program. Although claimant’s participation in the program did not begin until May 22, 1995, he did not return to his employment after May 11, 1995, later testifying that he needed to spend this interim period concentrating his efforts on staying away from drugs. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. We agree.

Claimant resigned without requesting a leave of absence for either medical or personal reasons. Instead, he simply announced the fact of his resignation to his employer and failed to report for work thereafter. Under these circumstances, there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that claimant left his employment under disqualifying conditions (see generally, Matter of Goldstein [Hudacs], 192 AD2d 919, 920). Claimant’s remaining contentions, including his assertion that it was error for a panel of two Board members to consider his appeal rather than a full Board panel, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit (see, Matter of Pokigo [Superior Sales & Salvage—Hartnett], 156 AD2d 855, 856).

Crew III, J. P., White, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 Appeal Board, filed February 2, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

The record discloses that claimant notified his employer on May 11, 1995 that he would not be returning to work because he planned to enter a drug rehabilitation program. Although claimant’s participation in the program did not begin until May 22, 1995, he did not return to his employment after May 11, 1995, later testifying that he needed to spend this interim period concentrating his efforts on staying away from drugs. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. We agree.

Claimant resigned without requesting a leave of absence for either medical or personal reasons. Instead, he simply announced the fact of his resignation to his employer and failed to report for work thereafter. Under these circumstances, there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that claimant left his employment under disqualifying conditions (see generally, Matter of Goldstein [Hudacs], 192 AD2d 919, 920). Claimant’s remaining contentions, including his assertion that it was error for a panel of two Board members to consider his appeal rather than a full Board panel, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit (see, Matter of Pokigo [Superior Sales & Salvage—Hartnett], 156 AD2d 855, 856).

Crew III, J. P., White, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 869, 653 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-larkin-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack