In re the Claim of Rink

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Rink

25 A.D.2d 790, 269 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4379

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

DecidedApril 29, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 790 (In re the Claim of Rink) 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 Rink, 25 A.D.2d 790, 269 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Taylor, J.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which affirmed the decision of a Referee ruling the claimant ineligible to receive benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without [791]*791good cause. What constitutes “ good cause ” within the meaning of subdivision 1 of section 593 of the Labor Law is a factual question and thus within the exclusive province of the board if its determination is supported by substantial evidence. (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Lipschitz [Lubin], 7 A D 2d 777; Matter of Sperling [Catherwood], 20 A D 2d 584, mot. for lv. to app. den. 14 N Y 2d 481.) On the present record we perceive no reason to disturb the board’s determination since it could properly be found that when he accepted the employment claimant was aware of the condition that the performance of overtime work would be required. Decision affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J.,, Herlihy, Reynolds and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Taylor, J.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which affirmed the decision of a Referee ruling the claimant ineligible to receive benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without [791]*791good cause. What constitutes “ good cause ” within the meaning of subdivision 1 of section 593 of the Labor Law is a factual question and thus within the exclusive province of the board if its determination is supported by substantial evidence. (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Lipschitz [Lubin], 7 A D 2d 777; Matter of Sperling [Catherwood], 20 A D 2d 584, mot. for lv. to app. den. 14 N Y 2d 481.) On the present record we perceive no reason to disturb the board’s determination since it could properly be found that when he accepted the employment claimant was aware of the condition that the performance of overtime work would be required. Decision affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J.,, Herlihy, Reynolds and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 790, 269 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-rink-nyappdiv-1966.