In re the Claim of Mason

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Mason

252 A.D.2d 704, 675 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8211

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 704 (In re the Claim of Mason) 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 Mason, 252 A.D.2d 704, 675 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8211 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal [705]*705Board, filed October 31, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause and refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

Claimant, a truck driver, left work and refused to drive his assigned tractor after the employer’s mechanic stated that it was in need of repair. The repairs later were determined to be unnecessary and the employer left several messages for claimant requesting that he contact the employer regarding specific work assignments. Claimant failed to respond to the messages in a timely fashion and, as a result, the employer assigned the shifts to other employees. In a subsequent meeting with the employer, claimant was advised that he could return to work but that his shift hours would be altered temporarily. Claimant declined the offer. Under these circumstances, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s findings that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause and refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause (compare, Matter of McEvoy [New York Tel. Co. — Roberts], 89 AD2d 1049).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Carpinello and Graffeo, 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 [705]*705Board, filed October 31, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause and refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

Claimant, a truck driver, left work and refused to drive his assigned tractor after the employer’s mechanic stated that it was in need of repair. The repairs later were determined to be unnecessary and the employer left several messages for claimant requesting that he contact the employer regarding specific work assignments. Claimant failed to respond to the messages in a timely fashion and, as a result, the employer assigned the shifts to other employees. In a subsequent meeting with the employer, claimant was advised that he could return to work but that his shift hours would be altered temporarily. Claimant declined the offer. Under these circumstances, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s findings that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause and refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause (compare, Matter of McEvoy [New York Tel. Co. — Roberts], 89 AD2d 1049).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 704, 675 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-mason-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack