In re the Claim of Reda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Reda

278 A.D.2d 612, 717 N.Y.S.2d 729, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13140

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 612 (In re the Claim of Reda) 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 Reda, 278 A.D.2d 612, 717 N.Y.S.2d 729, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 3, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant resigned from her employment as an accounts payable clerk in order to relocate to California with her husband, who had recently lost his job and was experiencing difficulty obtaining new employment. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. We affirm. Although claimant’s husband hoped to establish a consulting business using former business connections in California, at the time of the relocation continuing work was available to claimant and neither she nor her husband had any definite employment prospects or job offers in California. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons (see, Matter of Hairston [Sweeney], 247 AD2d 747; Matter of Olek [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 806).

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, 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 June 3, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant resigned from her employment as an accounts payable clerk in order to relocate to California with her husband, who had recently lost his job and was experiencing difficulty obtaining new employment. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. We affirm. Although claimant’s husband hoped to establish a consulting business using former business connections in California, at the time of the relocation continuing work was available to claimant and neither she nor her husband had any definite employment prospects or job offers in California. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons (see, Matter of Hairston [Sweeney], 247 AD2d 747; Matter of Olek [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 806).

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 612, 717 N.Y.S.2d 729, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-reda-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack