In re the Claim of Peacock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Peacock

181 A.D.2d 935, 580 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3084

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D.2d 935 (In re the Claim of Peacock) 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 Peacock, 181 A.D.2d 935, 580 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3084 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 20, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

[936]*936Upon the Administrative Law Judge’s decision that she was eligible to do so, claimant began receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently determined that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant’s only argument on appeal is that, because the Administrative Law Judge ruled in her favor, she should not have to repay any of the benefits that she already received. We have previously held that payments made under similar circumstances are recoverable (see, Matter of Simone [Estate of King — Hartnett], 142 AD2d 768, 770).

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and Casey, 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 November 20, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

[936]*936Upon the Administrative Law Judge’s decision that she was eligible to do so, claimant began receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently determined that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant’s only argument on appeal is that, because the Administrative Law Judge ruled in her favor, she should not have to repay any of the benefits that she already received. We have previously held that payments made under similar circumstances are recoverable (see, Matter of Simone [Estate of King — Hartnett], 142 AD2d 768, 770).

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 935, 580 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-peacock-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack