In re the Claim of Maceli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Maceli

184 A.D.2d 982, 585 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8589

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

DecidedJune 25, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 982 (In re the Claim of Maceli) 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 Maceli, 184 A.D.2d 982, 585 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8589 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 28, 1991, which, upon reconsideration, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant, a purchasing agent for a retail service firm, voluntarily left her job without good cause when she relocated with her husband to Florida (see, Matter of Ludwig [Levine], 52 AD2d 709; Matter of Di Salvo [Catherwood], 30 AD2d 755). The record reveals that, at the time they decided to move, neither claimant nor her husband had any specific job opportunities in Florida. In fact, claimant testified that her husband went to Florida to "look for [a] business” because he had heard there were opportunities there. In addition, claimant’s employer specifically informed her that there were no job opportunities with the company for her in Florida, but that [983]*983she could continue working in New York. Leaving a job to move to another locality without a firm prospect of employment constitutes voluntary leaving of employment without good cause (see, Matter of Behnke [White Carriage Corp.— Roberts], 97 AD2d 679, 680; Matter of Sanchez [Catherwood], 27 AD2d 678). Accordingly, the Board’s decision must be upheld.

Weiss, P. J., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, 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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 28, 1991, which, upon reconsideration, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant, a purchasing agent for a retail service firm, voluntarily left her job without good cause when she relocated with her husband to Florida (see, Matter of Ludwig [Levine], 52 AD2d 709; Matter of Di Salvo [Catherwood], 30 AD2d 755). The record reveals that, at the time they decided to move, neither claimant nor her husband had any specific job opportunities in Florida. In fact, claimant testified that her husband went to Florida to "look for [a] business” because he had heard there were opportunities there. In addition, claimant’s employer specifically informed her that there were no job opportunities with the company for her in Florida, but that [983]*983she could continue working in New York. Leaving a job to move to another locality without a firm prospect of employment constitutes voluntary leaving of employment without good cause (see, Matter of Behnke [White Carriage Corp.— Roberts], 97 AD2d 679, 680; Matter of Sanchez [Catherwood], 27 AD2d 678). Accordingly, the Board’s decision must be upheld.

Weiss, P. J., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 982, 585 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-maceli-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack