In re the Claim of Rogoish

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Rogoish

242 A.D.2d 809, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8655

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 809 (In re the Claim of Rogoish) 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 Rogoish, 242 A.D.2d 809, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 21, 1995, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

[810]*810Claimant, an automobile technician, was laid off due to lack of work. Four days later, the employer contacted claimant and informed him that work was available because another technician had left. Claimant refused the work stating that he was not ready to come back. Based upon our review of the record, substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision to disqualify claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he had refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause (see, Matter of Pigott [Met Constr. Corp.—Sweeney], 240 AD2d 836; Matter of Garth [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 662). Although claimant denied that the employer had offered to rehire him, this merely created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Pigott [Met Constr. Corp.—Sweeney], supra).

Casey, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Peters, Spain and Carpinello, 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 November 21, 1995, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

[810]*810Claimant, an automobile technician, was laid off due to lack of work. Four days later, the employer contacted claimant and informed him that work was available because another technician had left. Claimant refused the work stating that he was not ready to come back. Based upon our review of the record, substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision to disqualify claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he had refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause (see, Matter of Pigott [Met Constr. Corp.—Sweeney], 240 AD2d 836; Matter of Garth [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 662). Although claimant denied that the employer had offered to rehire him, this merely created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Pigott [Met Constr. Corp.—Sweeney], supra).

Casey, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 809, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-rogoish-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack