In re the Claim of Petruzzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Petruzzi

244 A.D.2d 754, 664 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11746

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 754 (In re the Claim of Petruzzi) 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 Petruzzi, 244 A.D.2d 754, 664 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 14, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed for 33 years as a cashier for the employer in its Brooklyn location until she moved to New Jersey where she and her husband purchased a condominium. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant had left her employment without good cause and disqualified her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. We affirm. Although claimant testified that she moved to New Jersey because she could not find affordable housing in Brooklyn, she failed to substantiate that claim. Rather, the record reveals that claimant’s decision to move to New Jersey was prompted by her desire to be closer to her family and that she was financially able to continue living in Brooklyn where she had continuing employment available to her. Inasmuch as the Board’s ruling that claimant did not have a compelling reason to leave her job is supported by substantial evidence, it is affirmed (see, Matter of Powers [Sweeney], 227 AD2d 788; Matter of Levine [Sweeney], 212 AD2d 848).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters 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 February 14, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed for 33 years as a cashier for the employer in its Brooklyn location until she moved to New Jersey where she and her husband purchased a condominium. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant had left her employment without good cause and disqualified her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. We affirm. Although claimant testified that she moved to New Jersey because she could not find affordable housing in Brooklyn, she failed to substantiate that claim. Rather, the record reveals that claimant’s decision to move to New Jersey was prompted by her desire to be closer to her family and that she was financially able to continue living in Brooklyn where she had continuing employment available to her. Inasmuch as the Board’s ruling that claimant did not have a compelling reason to leave her job is supported by substantial evidence, it is affirmed (see, Matter of Powers [Sweeney], 227 AD2d 788; Matter of Levine [Sweeney], 212 AD2d 848).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 754, 664 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-petruzzi-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack