In re the Claim of Moffatt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Moffatt

52 A.D.2d 1019, 383 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12915

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

DecidedMay 27, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 1019 (In re the Claim of Moffatt) 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 Moffatt, 52 A.D.2d 1019, 383 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 25, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits on the ground he voluntarily left his employment to follow his spouse to [1020]*1020another locality. Claimant worked for his last employer in New York as a maintenanceman for a period of more than three years. He was a diabetic. His wife quit her job to go to California because of a' death in her family. Thereafter, she determined to stay in California to take care of her mother. Claimant then moved in with a sister who prepared his special diet. When the sister died, claimant resigned his job and moved to California to join his wife. He testified that he moved to California because he had to have someone to prepare his special food. When he was initially interviewed in California, however, he stated that he moved to California to be with his wife; that he had no choice, either move or break up his marriage. Furthermore, in his written resignation he stated he was leaving for personal reasons. The board found that claimant left his employment voluntarily in order to follow his spouse to another locality and was, therefore, subject to disqualification. (Labor Law, § 593, subd 1, par [b], cl [2].) While the record contains two versions as to why claimant resigned and moved to California, it was for the board to resolve this question of fact. Since there is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the board’s determination, we must affirm. (Matter of Sanchez [Catherwood], 27 AD2d 678.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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 25, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits on the ground he voluntarily left his employment to follow his spouse to [1020]*1020another locality. Claimant worked for his last employer in New York as a maintenanceman for a period of more than three years. He was a diabetic. His wife quit her job to go to California because of a' death in her family. Thereafter, she determined to stay in California to take care of her mother. Claimant then moved in with a sister who prepared his special diet. When the sister died, claimant resigned his job and moved to California to join his wife. He testified that he moved to California because he had to have someone to prepare his special food. When he was initially interviewed in California, however, he stated that he moved to California to be with his wife; that he had no choice, either move or break up his marriage. Furthermore, in his written resignation he stated he was leaving for personal reasons. The board found that claimant left his employment voluntarily in order to follow his spouse to another locality and was, therefore, subject to disqualification. (Labor Law, § 593, subd 1, par [b], cl [2].) While the record contains two versions as to why claimant resigned and moved to California, it was for the board to resolve this question of fact. Since there is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the board’s determination, we must affirm. (Matter of Sanchez [Catherwood], 27 AD2d 678.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 1019, 383 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-moffatt-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack