In re the Claim of Liebermann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Liebermann

25 A.D.2d 903, 269 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4361

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

DecidedMay 3, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 903 (In re the Claim of Liebermann) 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 Liebermann, 25 A.D.2d 903, 269 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying him benefits on the ground that his separation from employment was voluntary and without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1 par. [a]). Claimant was employed by a corporation owned by himself and his wife which operated a retail dry cleaning establishment. In November, 1964 claimant and his wife sold their interest in the business and as a result claimant’s employment terminated. The board found that while there were understandable motives for claimant selling the business, these reasons were “ personal and noneompelling ” and that “ a loss of employment resulting from a sale, under such circumstances, constitutes a voluntary leaving of employment without good cause.” Whether in a given ease there is a “voluntary separation without good cause” involves a factual determination by the board and is therefore subject to our review only if the board’s decision is erroneous as a matter of law (Matter of Gleason [Catherwood], 23 A D 2d 922). On the instant record we cannot say that as a matter of law the board was required to credit claimant’s contention that he sold the business to avoid financial ruin and because he could no longer maintain the workload required of him to continue the business. Decision affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying him benefits on the ground that his separation from employment was voluntary and without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1 par. [a]). Claimant was employed by a corporation owned by himself and his wife which operated a retail dry cleaning establishment. In November, 1964 claimant and his wife sold their interest in the business and as a result claimant’s employment terminated. The board found that while there were understandable motives for claimant selling the business, these reasons were “ personal and noneompelling ” and that “ a loss of employment resulting from a sale, under such circumstances, constitutes a voluntary leaving of employment without good cause.” Whether in a given ease there is a “voluntary separation without good cause” involves a factual determination by the board and is therefore subject to our review only if the board’s decision is erroneous as a matter of law (Matter of Gleason [Catherwood], 23 A D 2d 922). On the instant record we cannot say that as a matter of law the board was required to credit claimant’s contention that he sold the business to avoid financial ruin and because he could no longer maintain the workload required of him to continue the business. Decision affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 903, 269 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-liebermann-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack