In re the Claim of Polito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Polito

304 A.D.2d 967, 759 N.Y.S.2d 207, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3827

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

DecidedApril 10, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 967 (In re the Claim of Polito) 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 Polito, 304 A.D.2d 967, 759 N.Y.S.2d 207, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 27, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a part-time lifeguard for a fitness club at the same time that he was employed for a publishing company on a full-time • basis. Shortly after he was discharged from his full-time employment on September 11, 2001 under nondisqualifying conditions, claimant decided to relocate to the City of Rochester, Monroe County, because he could not afford to continue living in New York City on his part-time salary. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his subsequent application for unemployment insurance benefits finding that he voluntarily left his part-time employment without good cause and charged him with a recoverable overpayment of benefits because he made willful false statements to obtain benefits.

Although claimant lost his full-time employment under non-disqualifying circumstances, claimant quit his part-time employment in order to relocate without investigating whether his hours at the fitness club could be increased. Inasmuch as continuing work was available, we find substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons (see Matter of Jeffries [Commissioner of Labor], 298 AD2d 677 [2002]; Matter of Reda [Commissioner of Labor], 278 AD2d 612 [2000]). Furthermore, claimant’s statements that he was unemployed as a direct result of the World Trade Center disaster, rather than due to the loss of his full-time position and plans to relocate, and his failure to disclose that continuing work was available to him supports the finding that he made willful false statements to obtain benefits (see Matter of Brill [Commissioner of Labor], 251 AD2d 948 [1998]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, 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 September 27, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a part-time lifeguard for a fitness club at the same time that he was employed for a publishing company on a full-time • basis. Shortly after he was discharged from his full-time employment on September 11, 2001 under nondisqualifying conditions, claimant decided to relocate to the City of Rochester, Monroe County, because he could not afford to continue living in New York City on his part-time salary. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his subsequent application for unemployment insurance benefits finding that he voluntarily left his part-time employment without good cause and charged him with a recoverable overpayment of benefits because he made willful false statements to obtain benefits.

Although claimant lost his full-time employment under non-disqualifying circumstances, claimant quit his part-time employment in order to relocate without investigating whether his hours at the fitness club could be increased. Inasmuch as continuing work was available, we find substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons (see Matter of Jeffries [Commissioner of Labor], 298 AD2d 677 [2002]; Matter of Reda [Commissioner of Labor], 278 AD2d 612 [2000]). Furthermore, claimant’s statements that he was unemployed as a direct result of the World Trade Center disaster, rather than due to the loss of his full-time position and plans to relocate, and his failure to disclose that continuing work was available to him supports the finding that he made willful false statements to obtain benefits (see Matter of Brill [Commissioner of Labor], 251 AD2d 948 [1998]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 967, 759 N.Y.S.2d 207, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-polito-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack