In re the Claim of Paulsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Paulsen

244 A.D.2d 639, 664 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11120

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 639 (In re the Claim of Paulsen) 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 Paulsen, 244 A.D.2d 639, 664 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11120 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 3, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a telemarketer until June 14, 1996 when she left her job to relocate to New Jersey to assist her elderly mother. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the determination of an Administrative Law Judge that providing companionship to her mother, in the absence of a medical necessity, did not constitute good cause for claimant to leave her employment. Claimant testified that after the death of her father on June 1, 1996, and in the midst of marital disharmony in her own home, she resigned from her position and relocated because her widowed mother needed someone to stay with her. Although her mother needed some assistance with certain personal hygiene and dietary needs, claimant admitted that she was essentially able to care for herself. Under the circumstances, the Board’s finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and will be affirmed {see [640]*640generally, Matter of Sion [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 662; Matter of Edwards [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 895). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Spain 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 March 3, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a telemarketer until June 14, 1996 when she left her job to relocate to New Jersey to assist her elderly mother. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the determination of an Administrative Law Judge that providing companionship to her mother, in the absence of a medical necessity, did not constitute good cause for claimant to leave her employment. Claimant testified that after the death of her father on June 1, 1996, and in the midst of marital disharmony in her own home, she resigned from her position and relocated because her widowed mother needed someone to stay with her. Although her mother needed some assistance with certain personal hygiene and dietary needs, claimant admitted that she was essentially able to care for herself. Under the circumstances, the Board’s finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and will be affirmed {see [640]*640generally, Matter of Sion [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 662; Matter of Edwards [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 895). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 639, 664 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-paulsen-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack