In re the Claim of Posselt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Posselt

3 A.D.2d 881, 161 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5905

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

DecidedApril 10, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 A.D.2d 881 (In re the Claim of Posselt) 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 Posselt, 3 A.D.2d 881, 161 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed a referee’s decision sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner, holding that claimant was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits beginning January 9, 1956, on the ground that she was unavailable for employment. Claimant had been employed as a librarian at the Haines Falls Library located at Haines Falls, Greene County, N. Y. She lived some distance from the library and it had been the custom for her husband to drive her to work in their private automobile. Claimant does not drive a car. When her husband became ill and required hospitalization claimant notified her employer that, for that reason, she was unable to get to work and she was granted an indefinite leave of absence. The employer was under no duty, either by contract or custom, to furnish transportation. The lack of transportation to enable claimant to report for work which was available was due to her own personal circumstances. Her lack of employment was not due to economic circumstances or the inability of employers to provide work, as contemplated by the spirit and purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Law. Appellant rightfully contends that this was not a “voluntary quit” in the narrow sense that there was no reason at all for her unemployment. She insists that she was “ ready, willing and able ” to work. (Unemployment Insurance Law, § 591, subd. 2 [Labor Law, art. 18].) However, within the purview of the statute, more than a state of mind is required. There must not only be a willingness, but the willingness and ability to present oneself at the place of work and actually doing so. While the record presents some conflict as to details, only a question of fact was presented, and we may not say, as a matter of law, that there was no substantial evidence to support the decision. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Gibson, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed a referee’s decision sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner, holding that claimant was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits beginning January 9, 1956, on the ground that she was unavailable for employment. Claimant had been employed as a librarian at the Haines Falls Library located at Haines Falls, Greene County, N. Y. She lived some distance from the library and it had been the custom for her husband to drive her to work in their private automobile. Claimant does not drive a car. When her husband became ill and required hospitalization claimant notified her employer that, for that reason, she was unable to get to work and she was granted an indefinite leave of absence. The employer was under no duty, either by contract or custom, to furnish transportation. The lack of transportation to enable claimant to report for work which was available was due to her own personal circumstances. Her lack of employment was not due to economic circumstances or the inability of employers to provide work, as contemplated by the spirit and purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Law. Appellant rightfully contends that this was not a “voluntary quit” in the narrow sense that there was no reason at all for her unemployment. She insists that she was “ ready, willing and able ” to work. (Unemployment Insurance Law, § 591, subd. 2 [Labor Law, art. 18].) However, within the purview of the statute, more than a state of mind is required. There must not only be a willingness, but the willingness and ability to present oneself at the place of work and actually doing so. While the record presents some conflict as to details, only a question of fact was presented, and we may not say, as a matter of law, that there was no substantial evidence to support the decision. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Gibson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 881, 161 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-posselt-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack