In re the Claim of Lewites

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Lewites

33 A.D.2d 817, 305 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2766

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 817 (In re the Claim of Lewites) 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 Lewites, 33 A.D.2d 817, 305 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Cooke, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 29, 1968, disqualifying claimant from unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant, a salesman of dresses, received a notice on February 1,1968, directing him to appear for induction into the armed forces on February 13, 1968 and stating: “ You may be found not qualified for induction. Keep this in mind in arranging your affairs to prevent any undue hardship if you are not inducted. If employed, inform your employer of this possibility. Your employer can then be prepared to continue your employment if you are not inducted.” On February 2, 1968, claimant left his employment, allegedly to sell his car and visit relatives at Port Jervis, although he contemplated requesting an extension of time for reporting. He requested postponement of induction on or about February 5, but did not receive notice of its being granted until February 13. Claimant visited the relatives during the week rather than on a weekend. Upon return to his employer, claimant was notified that he had been replaced. What constitutes “ good cause ” within section 593 (subd. 1, par. [a]) of the Labor Law is a question of fact and this court should not disturb its resolution by the board here, since it is supported by substantial evidence. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.

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

Cooke, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 29, 1968, disqualifying claimant from unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant, a salesman of dresses, received a notice on February 1,1968, directing him to appear for induction into the armed forces on February 13, 1968 and stating: “ You may be found not qualified for induction. Keep this in mind in arranging your affairs to prevent any undue hardship if you are not inducted. If employed, inform your employer of this possibility. Your employer can then be prepared to continue your employment if you are not inducted.” On February 2, 1968, claimant left his employment, allegedly to sell his car and visit relatives at Port Jervis, although he contemplated requesting an extension of time for reporting. He requested postponement of induction on or about February 5, but did not receive notice of its being granted until February 13. Claimant visited the relatives during the week rather than on a weekend. Upon return to his employer, claimant was notified that he had been replaced. What constitutes “ good cause ” within section 593 (subd. 1, par. [a]) of the Labor Law is a question of fact and this court should not disturb its resolution by the board here, since it is supported by substantial evidence. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 817, 305 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-lewites-nyappdiv-1969.