In re the Claim of Reed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Reed

188 A.D.2d 725, 590 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13561

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 725 (In re the Claim of Reed) 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 Reed, 188 A.D.2d 725, 590 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 28, 1991, which ruled that claim[726]*726ant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant’s husband had no definite work prospects in Michigan when claimant quit her job in New York; in fact, the couple relocated to Florida when claimant’s husband did not find work in Michigan. Under these circumstances, there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant did not have a compelling reason to relocate with her husband to Michigan and that she therefore voluntarily left her employment without good cause (see, Matter of Behnke [White Carriage Corp.— Roberts], 97 AD2d 679; Matter of Fallon [Catherwood], 28 AD2d 1016). We also note that claimant presented no evidence that she could no longer afford to live in the area where she had been employed (see, Matter of Palmieri [Catherwood], 33 AD2d 588). Furthermore, although claimant testified that her department was being transferred to another location and that she believed she would not be offered a position in the transferred area, quitting in anticipation of discharge is not good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Manson [Hartford Acc. & Indem. Group — Levine], 50 AD2d 980).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Mahoney and Harvey, 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 August 28, 1991, which ruled that claim[726]*726ant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant’s husband had no definite work prospects in Michigan when claimant quit her job in New York; in fact, the couple relocated to Florida when claimant’s husband did not find work in Michigan. Under these circumstances, there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant did not have a compelling reason to relocate with her husband to Michigan and that she therefore voluntarily left her employment without good cause (see, Matter of Behnke [White Carriage Corp.— Roberts], 97 AD2d 679; Matter of Fallon [Catherwood], 28 AD2d 1016). We also note that claimant presented no evidence that she could no longer afford to live in the area where she had been employed (see, Matter of Palmieri [Catherwood], 33 AD2d 588). Furthermore, although claimant testified that her department was being transferred to another location and that she believed she would not be offered a position in the transferred area, quitting in anticipation of discharge is not good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Manson [Hartford Acc. & Indem. Group — Levine], 50 AD2d 980).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 725, 590 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-reed-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack