In re the Claim of Moisides

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Moisides

264 A.D.2d 879, 694 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9021

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

DecidedSeptember 9, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 879 (In re the Claim of Moisides) 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 Moisides, 264 A.D.2d 879, 694 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9021 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 13, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a management analyst for the Department of Military and Naval Affairs for almost 22 years until he resigned from his position after accepting the employer’s offer of an early retirement incentive payment in the amount of $25,000. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant voluntarily left his job without good cause and we affirm. Voluntary separation from one’s employment in order to accept an early retirement incentive package when, as in this instance, continuing work is available has been held not to constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Slezak [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 644; Matter of Joseph [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 944). Although it is undisputed that the retirement incentive stemmed from the employer’s plan to eventually replace civilian employees with military personnel over a period of years, there is no support in the record for claimant’s assertion that he accepted retirement in lieu of an “involuntary separation”. Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, it must be affirmed. Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be similarly unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Mugglin, 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 August 13, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a management analyst for the Department of Military and Naval Affairs for almost 22 years until he resigned from his position after accepting the employer’s offer of an early retirement incentive payment in the amount of $25,000. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant voluntarily left his job without good cause and we affirm. Voluntary separation from one’s employment in order to accept an early retirement incentive package when, as in this instance, continuing work is available has been held not to constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Slezak [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 644; Matter of Joseph [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 944). Although it is undisputed that the retirement incentive stemmed from the employer’s plan to eventually replace civilian employees with military personnel over a period of years, there is no support in the record for claimant’s assertion that he accepted retirement in lieu of an “involuntary separation”. Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, it must be affirmed. Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be similarly unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 879, 694 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-moisides-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack