In re the Claim of Michael A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Michael A.

215 A.D.2d 855, 626 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5001

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

DecidedMay 11, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 855 (In re the Claim of Michael A.) 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 Michael A., 215 A.D.2d 855, 626 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5001 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 29, 1993, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

After being reprimanded for tardiness, claimant, a dispatcher for an ambulette service, left his employer’s premises without notifying a supervisor. He failed to call in or report to work for the rest of the day. While claimant testified that he advised his employer that he was leaving due to illness, the weight to be accorded this testimony, as well as the conflicting testimony of other witnesses, was within the exclusive province of the Board. Under these facts, there is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, 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 June 29, 1993, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

After being reprimanded for tardiness, claimant, a dispatcher for an ambulette service, left his employer’s premises without notifying a supervisor. He failed to call in or report to work for the rest of the day. While claimant testified that he advised his employer that he was leaving due to illness, the weight to be accorded this testimony, as well as the conflicting testimony of other witnesses, was within the exclusive province of the Board. Under these facts, there is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 855, 626 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-michael-a-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack