In re the Claim of Lewis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Lewis

25 A.D.2d 473, 265 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5200

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 473 (In re the Claim of Lewis) 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 Lewis, 25 A.D.2d 473, 265 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disquali[474]*474fled claimant from benefits on the ground that he voluntarily separated from his employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1) by provoking his discharge. Claimant, a plumbing supply salesman, conceded that “ for years” he had disagreed with his employer’s policies (1) to expend selling effort on distributors smaller than the large concerns to whom he customarily sold and (2) to develop a sales territory, such as Connecticut, outside the metropolitan area; claimant considering each policy unwise and unprofitable and declining to pursue either. The board was warranted in finding that claimant “ could have reasonably anticipated that his repeated failure to heed the instructions of the employer would eventually bring about his termination from employment, as actually occurred.” The ease is similar to Matter of Karman (Lubin) (2 A D 2d 626), in which we said: “When claimant made the choice, amounting to an election not to meet a condition of the work, he became separated from his employment by his own choice, and it must be deemed within the fact-finding power of the board to determine, under the particular circumstances, that the separation was a voluntary one.” Decision affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disquali[474]*474fled claimant from benefits on the ground that he voluntarily separated from his employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1) by provoking his discharge. Claimant, a plumbing supply salesman, conceded that “ for years” he had disagreed with his employer’s policies (1) to expend selling effort on distributors smaller than the large concerns to whom he customarily sold and (2) to develop a sales territory, such as Connecticut, outside the metropolitan area; claimant considering each policy unwise and unprofitable and declining to pursue either. The board was warranted in finding that claimant “ could have reasonably anticipated that his repeated failure to heed the instructions of the employer would eventually bring about his termination from employment, as actually occurred.” The ease is similar to Matter of Karman (Lubin) (2 A D 2d 626), in which we said: “When claimant made the choice, amounting to an election not to meet a condition of the work, he became separated from his employment by his own choice, and it must be deemed within the fact-finding power of the board to determine, under the particular circumstances, that the separation was a voluntary one.” Decision affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 473, 265 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-lewis-nyappdiv-1966.