In re the Claim of Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Murphy

179 A.D.2d 849, 577 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 75

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 179 A.D.2d 849 (In re the Claim of Murphy) 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 Murphy, 179 A.D.2d 849, 577 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 75 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[850]*850Claimants advised their employer’s president that they wished to exercise their rights under their shareholders’ agreement to terminate their employment in order to secure the value of their shares in the corporation. While they also said they were willing to negotiate new terms of employment, when the employer inquired as to whether claimants would be willing to remain, claimants stated that they would first prefer to settle the matter of the value of the stock. Claimants were never threatened with discharge or a reduction in salary. Under these circumstances, the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimants chose to terminate their employment in order to protect the value of their shares even though they could have continued working, and that they therefore left their jobs for personal and noncompelling reasons, is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Sonners [Roberts], 133 AD2d 491).

Mercure, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[850]*850Claimants advised their employer’s president that they wished to exercise their rights under their shareholders’ agreement to terminate their employment in order to secure the value of their shares in the corporation. While they also said they were willing to negotiate new terms of employment, when the employer inquired as to whether claimants would be willing to remain, claimants stated that they would first prefer to settle the matter of the value of the stock. Claimants were never threatened with discharge or a reduction in salary. Under these circumstances, the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimants chose to terminate their employment in order to protect the value of their shares even though they could have continued working, and that they therefore left their jobs for personal and noncompelling reasons, is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Sonners [Roberts], 133 AD2d 491).

Mercure, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 849, 577 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-murphy-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack