In re the Claim of Olek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Olek

243 A.D.2d 806, 662 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9699

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 806 (In re the Claim of Olek) 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 Olek, 243 A.D.2d 806, 662 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 14, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a secretary for a real estate firm until she resigned in order to move to Florida with her husband who had lost his job in this State. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant had left her employment without good cause and charged her with a recoverable overpayment. We affirm. The record discloses that neither claimant nor her spouse had definite job prospects in Florida prior to their relocation. Claimant’s spouse had merely executed a letter of intent to negotiate the purchase of a partnership interest in a friend’s business in that State. Under these circumstances, the Board’s ruling that claimant did not have a compelling reason to leave her job is supported by substantial evidence and it is, accordingly, affirmed (see, Matter of Reed [Hudacs], 188 AD2d 725, 726).

[807]*807Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, 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 14, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a secretary for a real estate firm until she resigned in order to move to Florida with her husband who had lost his job in this State. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant had left her employment without good cause and charged her with a recoverable overpayment. We affirm. The record discloses that neither claimant nor her spouse had definite job prospects in Florida prior to their relocation. Claimant’s spouse had merely executed a letter of intent to negotiate the purchase of a partnership interest in a friend’s business in that State. Under these circumstances, the Board’s ruling that claimant did not have a compelling reason to leave her job is supported by substantial evidence and it is, accordingly, affirmed (see, Matter of Reed [Hudacs], 188 AD2d 725, 726).

[807]*807Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 806, 662 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-olek-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack