In re the Claim of McNeil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of McNeil

180 A.D.2d 994, 580 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2891

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 180 A.D.2d 994 (In re the Claim of McNeil) 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 McNeil, 180 A.D.2d 994, 580 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment [995]*995Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 18, 1990, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that there were no compelling reasons supporting claimant’s separations from employment and that his periods of unemployment were contrived by himself and his employer (see generally, Matter of Goggin [Ross], 79 AD2d 1057; Matter of Picardi [Levine], 51 AD2d 824). The Board’s conclusion that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause must therefore be upheld (see, Matter of Baker [Hartnett], 147 AD2d 790, appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 714). As to claimant’s contentions to the contrary, we note that it was for the Board to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to assess the credibility of witnesses (see, Matter of Noss [Lawrence Aviation Indus.— Roberts], 133 AD2d 510, lv denied 71 NY2d 802). There is also substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant made willful false statements to obtain unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806).

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Levine, 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 [995]*995Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 18, 1990, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that there were no compelling reasons supporting claimant’s separations from employment and that his periods of unemployment were contrived by himself and his employer (see generally, Matter of Goggin [Ross], 79 AD2d 1057; Matter of Picardi [Levine], 51 AD2d 824). The Board’s conclusion that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause must therefore be upheld (see, Matter of Baker [Hartnett], 147 AD2d 790, appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 714). As to claimant’s contentions to the contrary, we note that it was for the Board to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to assess the credibility of witnesses (see, Matter of Noss [Lawrence Aviation Indus.— Roberts], 133 AD2d 510, lv denied 71 NY2d 802). There is also substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant made willful false statements to obtain unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806).

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Levine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 994, 580 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-mcneil-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack