In re the Claim of Paul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Paul

242 A.D.2d 767, 661 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8510

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

DecidedSeptember 4, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 767 (In re the Claim of Paul) 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 Paul, 242 A.D.2d 767, 661 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 12, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant, a teacher’s aide, was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment to take advantage of the early retirement [768]*768incentive package. Claimant testified that she retired because she was concerned about the possibility of being laid off due to Education Department budget cuts. Although claimant’s employer could not guarantee claimant’s continued employment, testimony at the hearing established that there was no threat thereto, especially given her seniority status, together with the fact that the budget cuts did not affect personnel. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause (see, Matter of Fontaine [Dept. of Air Force—Sweeney], 239 AD2d 641; Matter of Appleman [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 933).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. 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 12, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant, a teacher’s aide, was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment to take advantage of the early retirement [768]*768incentive package. Claimant testified that she retired because she was concerned about the possibility of being laid off due to Education Department budget cuts. Although claimant’s employer could not guarantee claimant’s continued employment, testimony at the hearing established that there was no threat thereto, especially given her seniority status, together with the fact that the budget cuts did not affect personnel. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause (see, Matter of Fontaine [Dept. of Air Force—Sweeney], 239 AD2d 641; Matter of Appleman [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 933).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 767, 661 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-paul-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack