In re the Claim of Loia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Loia

228 A.D.2d 847, 644 N.Y.2d 95, 644 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6692

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

DecidedJune 13, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 847 (In re the Claim of Loia) 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 Loia, 228 A.D.2d 847, 644 N.Y.2d 95, 644 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant participated in his employer’s voluntary incentive separation program in which he accepted a lump sum of $25,000 to retire early. The Board denied his application for unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Inasmuch as claimant admitted that he voluntarily participated in the program in order to get the $25,000 lump-sum payment which he would not have gotten if he did not retire early, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Wilson [City Univ.—Sweeney], 225 AD2d 924; Matter of Appleman [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 933).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Casey 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

Claimant participated in his employer’s voluntary incentive separation program in which he accepted a lump sum of $25,000 to retire early. The Board denied his application for unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Inasmuch as claimant admitted that he voluntarily participated in the program in order to get the $25,000 lump-sum payment which he would not have gotten if he did not retire early, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Wilson [City Univ.—Sweeney], 225 AD2d 924; Matter of Appleman [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 933).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 847, 644 N.Y.2d 95, 644 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-loia-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack