In re the Claim of Miller

296 A.D.2d 693, 745 N.Y.S.2d 241, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7333
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 11, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 296 A.D.2d 693 (In re the Claim of Miller) 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 Miller, 296 A.D.2d 693, 745 N.Y.S.2d 241, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 30, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant and his brother were employed by a medical labo[694]*694ratory as sales representatives. On June 15, 2000, the employer notified claimant that his brother was suspected of committing certain fraudulent acts against the employer’s interest. Although claimant was under no suspicion, the employer informed him that he would be discharged effective June 30, 2000. Claimant left his employment that same day. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant had left his employment under disqualifying circumstances. We affirm.

In general, leaving employment in anticipation of a scheduled discharge date will not constitute good cause for resigning within the meaning of the Labor Law (see, Matter of Drechsler [Bretton Woods Homeowners Assn.—Hudacs], 197 AD2d 739; see also, Matter of Giaffo [Sweeney], 235 AD2d 886). Substantial evidence in the record supports the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left his job two weeks before he was scheduled to be discharged; hence, the ruling that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits will not be disturbed. The remaining issues raised by claimant have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Peters, J.P., Spain, 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

Related

In re the Claim of Paul-Marseille
8 A.D.3d 922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Claim of Maleknia
7 A.D.3d 867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Claim of Barden
308 A.D.2d 622 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Brown
305 A.D.2d 915 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
296 A.D.2d 693, 745 N.Y.S.2d 241, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-miller-nyappdiv-2002.