In re the Claim of Norvell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Norvell

254 A.D.2d 670, 679 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11484

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 670 (In re the Claim of Norvell) 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 Norvell, 254 A.D.2d 670, 679 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Ap[671]*671peal Board, filed November 3, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Based upon our review of the record, we agree with claimant’s contention that she was entitled to an adjournment in order to procure the testimony of her co-worker Henry Manee. According to claimant, she left her employment at a manufacturing facility allegedly due to harassment by her supervisor. The record reveals that by decision dated June 12,1997, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ordered, inter alia, that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, which found that claimant was entitled to benefits, be rescinded and chat the case be remanded for a further hearing. The Board specifically ordered that claimant produce Manee, who had testified at a previous hearing, to testify with more specificity as to when and where any alleged harassment against claimant occurred. Upon remand, claimant requested that the hearing be adjourned and that a subpoena against Manee be issued inasmuch as efforts to locate Manee at his new address had been futile. The Administrative Law Judge denied claimant’s requests and ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she left her employment in anticipation of discharge, and the decision was affirmed on administrative appeal.

Inasmuch as the record discloses that claimant was denied her right to present testimony regarding the alleged harassment and such evidence may have affected the final determination, we conclude that the matter must be reversed and remitted (see, e.g., Matter of Salazar [Levine], 48 AD2d 75; cf., Matter of Thompson [Hudacs], 210 AD2d 614; Matter of Valentin [American Museum of Natural History — Roberts], 103 AD2d 919).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Ap[671]*671peal Board, filed November 3, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Based upon our review of the record, we agree with claimant’s contention that she was entitled to an adjournment in order to procure the testimony of her co-worker Henry Manee. According to claimant, she left her employment at a manufacturing facility allegedly due to harassment by her supervisor. The record reveals that by decision dated June 12,1997, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ordered, inter alia, that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, which found that claimant was entitled to benefits, be rescinded and chat the case be remanded for a further hearing. The Board specifically ordered that claimant produce Manee, who had testified at a previous hearing, to testify with more specificity as to when and where any alleged harassment against claimant occurred. Upon remand, claimant requested that the hearing be adjourned and that a subpoena against Manee be issued inasmuch as efforts to locate Manee at his new address had been futile. The Administrative Law Judge denied claimant’s requests and ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she left her employment in anticipation of discharge, and the decision was affirmed on administrative appeal.

Inasmuch as the record discloses that claimant was denied her right to present testimony regarding the alleged harassment and such evidence may have affected the final determination, we conclude that the matter must be reversed and remitted (see, e.g., Matter of Salazar [Levine], 48 AD2d 75; cf., Matter of Thompson [Hudacs], 210 AD2d 614; Matter of Valentin [American Museum of Natural History — Roberts], 103 AD2d 919).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 670, 679 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-norvell-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack