In re the Claim of Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Martinez

306 A.D.2d 745, 760 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7172

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

DecidedJune 19, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 745 (In re the Claim of Martinez) 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 Martinez, 306 A.D.2d 745, 760 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 14, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left his employment as a delicatessen clerk without good cause after he failed to return to work following a two-week leave of absence. Failure to return to work following an authorized leave of absence has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Raykina [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 940 [2003]; Matter of Murphy [Commissioner of Labor], 264 AD2d 877 [1999]). Significantly, the record establishes that claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits prior to the expiration of his leave of absence. Claimant’s inconsistent testimony as to when he called the employer and learned that his job had been filled presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Murphy [Commissioner of Labor], supra at 878).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, 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 November 14, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left his employment as a delicatessen clerk without good cause after he failed to return to work following a two-week leave of absence. Failure to return to work following an authorized leave of absence has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Raykina [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 940 [2003]; Matter of Murphy [Commissioner of Labor], 264 AD2d 877 [1999]). Significantly, the record establishes that claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits prior to the expiration of his leave of absence. Claimant’s inconsistent testimony as to when he called the employer and learned that his job had been filled presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Murphy [Commissioner of Labor], supra at 878).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 745, 760 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-martinez-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack