In re the Claim of Oku

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Oku

1 A.D.2d 684, 766 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1 A.D.3d 684, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11589

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

DecidedNovember 6, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 684 (In re the Claim of Oku) 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 Oku, 1 A.D.2d 684, 766 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1 A.D.3d 684, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11589 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 1, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant, a security guard, was to be reassigned after the client requested that he be removed. Claimant was given a counseling memorandum regarding allegations that he was sleeping on the job. Although he was told to wait to speak to the scheduling manager for a new assignment, claimant left after a period of time and did not return. Significantly, claimant had already applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The employer’s subsequent attempts to contact claimant in order to reassign him to a new location went unanswered. Inasmuch as the record establishes that continuing work was available, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant left his employment without good cause (see Matter of Hayes [Commissioner of Labor], 296 AD2d 762 [2002]; Matter of Corns [Commissioner of Labor], 272 AD2d 711 [2000]). Any conflict in the hearing testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Cranston [Commissioner of Labor], 294 AD2d 694 [2002]).

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, 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 May 1, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant, a security guard, was to be reassigned after the client requested that he be removed. Claimant was given a counseling memorandum regarding allegations that he was sleeping on the job. Although he was told to wait to speak to the scheduling manager for a new assignment, claimant left after a period of time and did not return. Significantly, claimant had already applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The employer’s subsequent attempts to contact claimant in order to reassign him to a new location went unanswered. Inasmuch as the record establishes that continuing work was available, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant left his employment without good cause (see Matter of Hayes [Commissioner of Labor], 296 AD2d 762 [2002]; Matter of Corns [Commissioner of Labor], 272 AD2d 711 [2000]). Any conflict in the hearing testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Cranston [Commissioner of Labor], 294 AD2d 694 [2002]).

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 684, 766 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1 A.D.3d 684, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-oku-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack