In re the Claim of Pigott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Pigott

240 A.D.2d 836, 659 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6550

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

DecidedJune 12, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 836 (In re the Claim of Pigott) 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 Pigott, 240 A.D.2d 836, 659 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 23, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

Claimant was receiving unemployment insurance benefits after being laid off by his employer due to lack of work. Thereafter, the employer telephoned claimant and left messages informing him that work was available. When the employer spoke to claimant, claimant refused the work because he was waiting for an assignment from another company: The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled [837]*837that claimant had refused an offer of suitable employment and disqualified him from receiving benefits. Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant refused suitable employment without good cause (see generally, Matter of Hibbard [Sweeney], 227 AD2d 698). Claimant’s testimony that he never received any messages or telephone calls merely presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Caillier [Hudacs], 194 AD2d 1025).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Casey, 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 January 23, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

Claimant was receiving unemployment insurance benefits after being laid off by his employer due to lack of work. Thereafter, the employer telephoned claimant and left messages informing him that work was available. When the employer spoke to claimant, claimant refused the work because he was waiting for an assignment from another company: The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled [837]*837that claimant had refused an offer of suitable employment and disqualified him from receiving benefits. Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant refused suitable employment without good cause (see generally, Matter of Hibbard [Sweeney], 227 AD2d 698). Claimant’s testimony that he never received any messages or telephone calls merely presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Caillier [Hudacs], 194 AD2d 1025).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 836, 659 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-pigott-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack