In re the Claim of Le Roy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Le Roy

26 A.D.2d 976, 274 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3062

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 976 (In re the Claim of Le Roy) 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 Le Roy, 26 A.D.2d 976, 274 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3062 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Staley, Jr., J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, affirming decision of the Referee disqualifying claimant from receiving [977]*977unemployment insurance benefits effective May 15, 1965, on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The claimant, a watchman, objected to his employer’s proposal that the 45-minute lunch period be eliminated, and that the employees eat on the job, thus reducing their work day. Claimant was suspended and then returned to work accepting the proposed lunch period, and agreeing to avoid further disagreements with his supervisor. On the following day, he received a letter from his supervisor which stated “ confine whatever you have to say, or write to me, to job information * * * I restored you to my department only on a probationary basis, and with the hope that you will seek employment elsewhere.” Approximately two weeks later, claimant resigned. The board held that, “ The absence of ordinary civilities or of a pleasant relationship did not constitute a good cause for a voluntary leaving of employment.” The board’s finding that the letter did not constitute good cause for leaving the employment, should be sustained. (Matter of Chawkin [Catherwood], 18 A D 2d 750; Matter of Jacobson [Catherwood], 20 A D 2d 733.) The present record merely presents a question of fact which is within the power of the board to determine (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Gilmore [Catherwood], 25 A D 2d 462.) Decision affirmed, without coste. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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, affirming decision of the Referee disqualifying claimant from receiving [977]*977unemployment insurance benefits effective May 15, 1965, on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The claimant, a watchman, objected to his employer’s proposal that the 45-minute lunch period be eliminated, and that the employees eat on the job, thus reducing their work day. Claimant was suspended and then returned to work accepting the proposed lunch period, and agreeing to avoid further disagreements with his supervisor. On the following day, he received a letter from his supervisor which stated “ confine whatever you have to say, or write to me, to job information * * * I restored you to my department only on a probationary basis, and with the hope that you will seek employment elsewhere.” Approximately two weeks later, claimant resigned. The board held that, “ The absence of ordinary civilities or of a pleasant relationship did not constitute a good cause for a voluntary leaving of employment.” The board’s finding that the letter did not constitute good cause for leaving the employment, should be sustained. (Matter of Chawkin [Catherwood], 18 A D 2d 750; Matter of Jacobson [Catherwood], 20 A D 2d 733.) The present record merely presents a question of fact which is within the power of the board to determine (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Gilmore [Catherwood], 25 A D 2d 462.) Decision affirmed, without coste. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 976, 274 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-le-roy-nyappdiv-1966.