In re the Claim of Prusinoski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Prusinoski

50 A.D.2d 698, 375 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12554

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 698 (In re the Claim of Prusinoski) 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 Prusinoski, 50 A.D.2d 698, 375 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 6, 1975, which affirmed a decision of the referee disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment to follow her spouse to another locality. After 33 years with her employer in Syracuse, claimant married and moved to Rome, New York, to reside with her husband. Claimant commuted daily to Syracuse from Rome for about two months when she quit her job. She testified that she found the travel too hard and that it made her nervous. There is, in our view, substantial evidence in the record to sustain the board’s determination that claimant voluntarily left her employment to follow her spouse to another locality. This automatically disqualified her from receiving benefits. (Labor Law, § 593, subd 1, par [b], cl [2].) Decision affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Koreman, Main and Larkin, JJ., concur.

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 March 6, 1975, which affirmed a decision of the referee disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment to follow her spouse to another locality. After 33 years with her employer in Syracuse, claimant married and moved to Rome, New York, to reside with her husband. Claimant commuted daily to Syracuse from Rome for about two months when she quit her job. She testified that she found the travel too hard and that it made her nervous. There is, in our view, substantial evidence in the record to sustain the board’s determination that claimant voluntarily left her employment to follow her spouse to another locality. This automatically disqualified her from receiving benefits. (Labor Law, § 593, subd 1, par [b], cl [2].) Decision affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Koreman, Main and Larkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 698, 375 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-prusinoski-nyappdiv-1975.