In re the Claim of Orenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Orenstein

173 A.D.2d 1029, 570 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7567

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

DecidedMay 16, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 173 A.D.2d 1029 (In re the Claim of Orenstein) 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 Orenstein, 173 A.D.2d 1029, 570 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 3, 1989, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, [1030]*1030that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The question of whether a claimant has refused alternative employment without good cause is a question of fact for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve (Matter of Consentino [Ross], 71 AD2d 1042). Here, the record supports the conclusion that claimant left her job because of her dissatisfaction with the reduced earnings that would result from the cut in her work week. As the Board noted, she could have stayed employed and supplemented her earnings with partial unemployment insurance benefits. Therefore, the decision to deny claimant’s application for benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, supra). Furthermore, the overpayments made to claimant were properly held recoverable under Labor Law § 597 (4) (see, Matter of Barber [Roberts] 121 AD2d 767, 769).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Weiss, J. P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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 October 3, 1989, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, [1030]*1030that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The question of whether a claimant has refused alternative employment without good cause is a question of fact for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve (Matter of Consentino [Ross], 71 AD2d 1042). Here, the record supports the conclusion that claimant left her job because of her dissatisfaction with the reduced earnings that would result from the cut in her work week. As the Board noted, she could have stayed employed and supplemented her earnings with partial unemployment insurance benefits. Therefore, the decision to deny claimant’s application for benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, supra). Furthermore, the overpayments made to claimant were properly held recoverable under Labor Law § 597 (4) (see, Matter of Barber [Roberts] 121 AD2d 767, 769).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Weiss, J. P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 1029, 570 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-orenstein-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack