In re the Claim of Onasanya

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Onasanya

224 A.D.2d 846, 637 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1312

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 846 (In re the Claim of Onasanya) 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 Onasanya, 224 A.D.2d 846, 637 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 15, 1994, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

Claimant worked part time as a home health aide for the employer from September 1992 through December 1992. After taking certain tests required by the employer, the employer offered claimant two other assignments. Claimant refused one assignment because the telephone company was scheduled to reconnect his telephone and the other because he wanted to attend a family outing. We find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

[847]*847Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, 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 September 15, 1994, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

Claimant worked part time as a home health aide for the employer from September 1992 through December 1992. After taking certain tests required by the employer, the employer offered claimant two other assignments. Claimant refused one assignment because the telephone company was scheduled to reconnect his telephone and the other because he wanted to attend a family outing. We find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

[847]*847Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 846, 637 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-onasanya-nyappdiv-1996.