In re the Claim of Rohde

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Rohde

207 A.D.2d 940, 616 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8952

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 940 (In re the Claim of Rohde) 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 Rohde, 207 A.D.2d 940, 616 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8952 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 18, 1993, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

The Board found that claimant left his job so he could receive the contributions that he made to his pension plan in a lump sum and that he would have received at least the [941]*941same amount in salary if he had continued to work for another year. The Board also found that claimant was not in danger of losing his contributions if he deferred retirement and that his job was not in jeopardy. Given these findings and the record before us, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that the loss of the lump-sum election did not provide claimant with a compelling incentive to leave his job. Accordingly, the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left his job without good cause must be upheld.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Peters, 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 February 18, 1993, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

The Board found that claimant left his job so he could receive the contributions that he made to his pension plan in a lump sum and that he would have received at least the [941]*941same amount in salary if he had continued to work for another year. The Board also found that claimant was not in danger of losing his contributions if he deferred retirement and that his job was not in jeopardy. Given these findings and the record before us, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that the loss of the lump-sum election did not provide claimant with a compelling incentive to leave his job. Accordingly, the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left his job without good cause must be upheld.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 940, 616 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-rohde-nyappdiv-1994.