In re the Claim of Lombard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Lombard

30 A.D.2d 748, 291 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3604

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

DecidedJune 27, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 748 (In re the Claim of Lombard) 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 Lombard, 30 A.D.2d 748, 291 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal -by the claimant from a decision of- the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits because she voluntarily terminated her employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, su-bd. 1, par. [a]). The board has held that claimant, a fashion coordinator but who most recently had been working as a secretary, in quitting her job as a secretary did not terminate her employment for good cause because she desired to return to a job as a fashion coordinator. On the instant record the board could clearly find that claimant was qualified as a secretary, having worked in that position for about a year and thus that her termination of employment was without good cause (Matter of Levin [Catherwood], 22 A D 2d 286, app. dsmd. 15 N Y 2d 1034; Matter of Reiger [Jofan Maintenance Corp.], 17 A D 2d 269; Matter of Sellers [Mays, Inc.], 13 A D 2d 204). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

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 disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits because she voluntarily terminated her employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, su-bd. 1, par. [a]). The board has held that claimant, a fashion coordinator but who most recently had been working as a secretary, in quitting her job as a secretary did not terminate her employment for good cause because she desired to return to a job as a fashion coordinator. On the instant record the board could clearly find that claimant was qualified as a secretary, having worked in that position for about a year and thus that her termination of employment was without good cause (Matter of Levin [Catherwood], 22 A D 2d 286, app. dsmd. 15 N Y 2d 1034; Matter of Reiger [Jofan Maintenance Corp.], 17 A D 2d 269; Matter of Sellers [Mays, Inc.], 13 A D 2d 204). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 748, 291 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-lombard-nyappdiv-1968.